Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on March 19, 2011, 07:13:57 AM



Title: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 19, 2011, 07:13:57 AM
EDITORIAL: Obama’s illegal war
Congress, not the U.N., should authorize force against Libya

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES-The Washington Times7:38 p.m., Friday, March 18, 2011

With Thursday’s passage of United Natons Security Council resolution 1973, the United States is set to go to war against Libya. Removing Moammar Gadhafi from power would probably advance the cause of freedom, but the United Nations has no legal authority to take a step of this magnitude. By bowing to the will of the U.N. Security Council, President Obama is diluting the sovereign power of the United States.

The U.N. resolution authorizes member states to take a number of military and nonmilitary actions to protect the people of Libya from Col. Gadhafi's government. Under its own rules, however, the United Nations cannot legally authorize military action to shape the internal affairs of member states. Article 2 section 7 of the U.N. charter states that, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” Chapter VII of the charter, which enumerates U.N. intervention powers, applies only to international breaches of the peace. The December 1981 U.N. “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States” reaffirmed this principle with its solemn declaration that, “No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.”

Five Security Council member states sat out the vote, including permanent members Russia and China, in addition to Germany, India and Brazil. China in particular objected to any action that would compromise Libya’s sovereignty, but did not veto the resolution. This may have been a political move, since the abstaining countries are now in a position to raise principled objections to whatever happens once force is utilized. To claim the United States forged an international consensus seems premature when Resolution 1973 did not have the support of countries representing 42 percent of the world’s population.

True to its internationalist instincts, the Obama administration would never contemplate an action that lacked U.N. approval, yet United Nations permission alone is inadequate. Sen. Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, believes that the Congress should debate a declaration of war over intervening in Libya. But the White House has not sought even the type of congressional authorization for the use of force that President George W. Bush did before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be ironic to say the least if Mr. Obama waged war with less legal backing than his predecessor.

International military action in Libya, even coming this late in the game, will be decisive. Resolution 1973 authorizes “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians,” short of deploying ground troops, which still leaves a variety of potent options for coalition commanders. The stated policy of the United States has been and should remain regime change, but the White House must seek some form of congressional approval before military action is taken against Libya. The president cannot be seen as a mere instrument of the United Nations, which would relegate the U.S. Constitution to second-class status behind the U.N. Charter. If U.S. troops are going to be put in harm’s way, the authority must come from elected representatives in Washington, not from a bunch of international bureaucrats hanging out in Turtle Bay.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/18/obamas-illegal-war/

This isn't really surprising given Obama's admiration of the European model where they've seceded sovereignty to the OIC-dominated UN.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 19, 2011, 07:17:37 AM
So is Obama a war criminal yet?   If Bush was one, surely the far left should be consistent no?   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 19, 2011, 11:04:55 PM
agreed 10000% berz.

If obama was capping baldheaded conservatives with Rush bumper stickers, kadaffi wouldn't be sending libyan soldiers to help us, right?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 20, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
OBAMA:  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://mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/18/libya


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 03:41:30 AM
No blood for oil!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on March 20, 2011, 04:36:14 AM
OBAMA:  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://mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/18/libya




Change we can believe in!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 04:40:28 AM
Amazing to see those who trashed Bush for 8 years now defend this.  Over at DU, you have a contingent of kneepadders fighting with people calling them on their double standards to no avail. 

Absolutely amazing. 

And what if this so called "no fly zone" does not work and gaffai retains power? 

In order to save face, we will be forced to put boots on the ground to make up for this blunder.   Geez. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 05:07:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 20, 2011, 05:56:32 AM
Most true conservatives were against this from the beginning.

only RINOs like mccain, Newt, Pawlenty and a few others jumped on the Kerry-led war bandwagon.

These libs know that the public rallies around the president (initially) during the early phases of war. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 07:03:57 AM
agreed 10000% berz.

If obama was capping baldheaded conservatives with Rush bumper stickers, kadaffi wouldn't be sending libyan soldiers to help us, right?

Nope.

This NFZ nonsense doesn't even make sense. Does anyone even know what the end-game is? Does Qaddafi remain in power in their vague plans? What's to stop him from dialing it down and then starving the rebels out or waiting a few months or a year and then finishing the job.

We were played like suckers by the Europeans and Arab League, which speaks wonders about Obama's inexperience.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 20, 2011, 07:49:55 AM
they're going to take over.  Period.   Install another jackass that'll play ball for 20 years before we're invading to kick him out.

We were suckered by warmongers on both sides of aisle.  Newt, hilary.  Mccain, kerry.  This isn't a left/right thing, nor a euro thing.  Warmongers win again.  War = good for busienss.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 08:22:34 AM
Kucinich is calling for bama's impeachment.   

Go DK! 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: SAMSON123 on March 20, 2011, 08:58:34 AM
Kucinich is calling for bama's impeachment.   

Go DK! 

Just another smoke screen


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
Just another smoke screen

Illuminatus!  ::)

Muslims are innocent. Muslims can do no wrong. Samson, in conjunction with Sorcha Faal, knows all of the world's secrets!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 20, 2011, 10:16:59 AM
I disagree with Martian Man, but also disagree with the decision to start another war. 

Dennis Kucinich: Libya Missile Strike An Impeachable Offense
March 20, 2011 08:20 AM EDT

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is questioning President Barack Obama's decision to participate in Saturday's missile attack on forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

During a conference call with fellow Democrats yesterday, Kucinich asked if the missile strikes should be considered an impeachable defense.

"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," Dennis Kucinich said in a statement issued on Friday.

Congress was not consulted before yesterday's air strikes, Politico reports.

"It is an act of war," according to Kucinich, who carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his coat pocket. "War from the air is still war."

Just a few years ago, the liberal lawmaker was busy leading the movement to impeach former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in Congress. At the time, critics viewed the impeachment effort as a purely partisan effort. Now we know Dennis Kucinich is willing to take any president to task for engaging in war without Congressional approval, even one from his own party.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979149868


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 10:35:04 AM
If this is what it takes to get barry out of office - fine - impachment now.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 20, 2011, 11:27:17 AM
Kucinich is calling for bama's impeachment.   

Go DK! 


HA!!..keep waiting for that


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 11:29:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 11:38:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCwUMtUeaLU


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 11:40:36 AM
Go Dennis! ! ! !

Make Peace not war! 

War is not the Answer!   

COEXIST! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWJLmMyGw-U


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 12:04:09 PM
Senator Barack Obama 12/20/207: “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://www­­­.boston.­c­o­m/news­/p­ol­itic­s/2­008­/s­peci­als/­­Candi­date­Q­A/Ob­ama­QA/
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: The True Adonis on March 20, 2011, 01:09:46 PM
3333666,

Haven`t I told you that you should vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader about a million times?  They are the best choices in my opinion, along with Mike Gravel.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
3333666,

Haven`t I told you that you should vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader about a million times?  They are the best choices in my opinion, along with Mike Gravel.

They are not running for anything.   And I still want to know what obama said to DK on AF1 to get him to vote for ObamaCare. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 01:37:33 PM
Funny Obama sent greeting to the iranians for some stupid ass holiday no one ever heard of and he didnt say shit about Purim.


________________________ ________________---

The White House Blog
President Obama’s Nowruz Message



President Obama sends an important message to those celebrating the holiday of Nowruz.  At a time of great regional change and renewal, the President this year speaks directly to the Iranian people, in particular the Iranian youth.  “...you – the young people of Iran – carry within you both the ancient greatness of Persian civilization, and the power to forge a country that is responsive to your aspirations. Your talent, your hopes, and your choices will shape the future of Iran, and help light the world.   And though times may seem dark, I want you to know that I am with you,” he says.


Read the President's Message in: Arabic (pdf) | Persian (pdf)

May all those who celebrate Nowruz around the world embrace the power of youth, and have a peaceful and prosperous new year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuTQGjfKtSA


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 01:42:56 PM



Change we can believe in!!


Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
fox ^ | 3/20/11 | Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation



So three or four of Obama's advisers, all women, wanted war against Libya.   We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less prowar, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character to it. Far from it.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: The True Adonis on March 20, 2011, 01:47:18 PM
Funny Obama sent greeting to the iranians for some stupid ass holiday no one ever heard of and he didnt say shit about Purim.


________________________ ________________---

The White House Blog
President Obama’s Nowruz Message



President Obama sends an important message to those celebrating the holiday of Nowruz.  At a time of great regional change and renewal, the President this year speaks directly to the Iranian people, in particular the Iranian youth.  “...you – the young people of Iran – carry within you both the ancient greatness of Persian civilization, and the power to forge a country that is responsive to your aspirations. Your talent, your hopes, and your choices will shape the future of Iran, and help light the world.   And though times may seem dark, I want you to know that I am with you,” he says.


Read the President's Message in: Arabic (pdf) | Persian (pdf)

May all those who celebrate Nowruz around the world embrace the power of youth, and have a peaceful and prosperous new year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuTQGjfKtSA

Sometimes you oughta just think before you post.  Seriously.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVmOaSrL2-o


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 01:50:11 PM
Oh like i care about Bushs' message of Noruz or whatever the fuck that is?   Ha ha ha ha.   



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: The True Adonis on March 20, 2011, 01:52:25 PM
Oh like i care about Bushs' message of Noruz or whatever the fuck that is?   Ha ha ha ha.   


You must of cared about Obama`s message though, considering you posted it. As to why, I have no clue.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 01:55:05 PM
You must of cared about Obama`s message though, considering you posted it. As to why, I have no clue.

I thought it was interesting in light of the fact that he did not mention Purim and that many more people in this country celebrate that than whatever the fuck Noruz is.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: The True Adonis on March 20, 2011, 02:00:58 PM
I thought it was interesting in light of the fact that he did not mention Purim and that many more people in this country celebrate that than whatever the fuck Noruz is.   
Who gives a shit about either? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 02:05:05 PM
Who gives a shit about either? 

Obviously Obama does.   :P 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 20, 2011, 02:05:42 PM

Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
fox ^ | 3/20/11 | Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation



So three or four of Obama's advisers, all women, wanted war against Libya.   We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less prowar, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character to it. Far from it.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


wow...I knew you were racist..but now sexism is added to the list as well.....you never cease to amaze me


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 02:09:27 PM
wow...I knew you were racist..but now sexism is added to the list as well.....you never cease to amaze me

Well we all know that fat hippo Mobacca runs Obama like a little bitch so this is nothing surprising. 

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 20, 2011, 02:11:48 PM
Well we all know that fat hippo Mobacca runs Obama like a little bitch so this is nothing surprising. 

 

fat hippo?....she isn't fat at all ..what are you talking about?..have you finally gone NUTS


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 02:17:33 PM
fat hippo?....she isn't fat at all ..what are you talking about?..have you finally gone NUTS


Pease, look at this beast.  She looks like security for a Tough Man Competition in Philly or Detroit.     


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 02:36:32 PM
Gaddafi may become target of air strikes, Liam Fox admitsCoalition forces accused of mission creep and disproportionate action against Tripoli

 
Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Sunday 20 March 2011 21.37 GMT Article history



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/coalition-criticism-arab-league-libya


________________________ ___________________-



Critics claim that Gaddafi's departure has become an explicit goal of UN policy. Photograph: Goran Tomasevic/REUTERS
 
America, France and Britain – the leaders of the coalition's air attacks on Libya – were struggling to maintain international support for their actions, as they faced stinging criticism about mission creep from the leader of the Arab League, as well as from China and Russia.

Critics claimed that the coalition of the willing may have been acting disproportionately and had come perilously close to making Gaddafi's departure an explicit goal of UN policy.

Russia, which abstained on the UN vote last week, called for "an end to indiscriminate force".

Despite denials from coalition forces, Alexander Lukashevich, Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, said that the coalition had hit non-military targets.

He suggested that 48 civilians had been killed. "We believe a mandate given by the UN security council resolution – a controversial move in itself – should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions, which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," he said.

The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, also startled western governments when he denounced the air attacks only a week after the league had called for creation of a no-fly zone.

Moussa, who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."

The Foreign Office later said Moussa claimed he had been misquoted, or had put his criticism more strongly in Arabic than in English. "We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people," the FO said.

The Arab League had, though, been called to an emergency session to discuss the scale of the attacks.

The British defence secretary, Liam Fox, said the scale was in line with UN resolutions that had been "essential in terms of the Gaddafi regime's ability to prosecute attacks on their own people". He also said it was possible that Gaddafi himself could become a target of air attacks if the safety of civilians could be guaranteed.

Ahead of a Commons debate and vote tomorrow, leading figures in David Cameron's cabinet were under pressure to clarify whether the explicit purpose of the attacks was to render Gaddafi's regime so powerless that it collapses.

Speaking on the Politics Show, Fox said: "Mission accomplished would mean the Libyan people free to control their own destiny. This is very clear – the international community wants his regime to end and wants the Libyan people to control for themselves their own country."

He then added: "Regime change is not an objective, but it may come about as a result of what is happening amongst the people of Libya."

He said: "When the dynamic shifts and the equilibrium shifts, we will get a better idea just how much support the Gaddafi regime has and how much the people of Libya genuinely long to be able to control their own country.

"If Colonel Gaddafi went, not every eye would be wet."

Fox said it was possible that allied forces might treat Gaddafi himself as a legitimate target for air strikes.

"There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him," he said. "You would have to take into account what would happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

One UK defence source said: "If we are seeking to destroy a military resource and he [Gaddafi] is caught in the process, that will not be our doing."

Fox also made it clear that the allied attacks would extend in the coming days from Gaddafi's air defence systems to his artillery.

Britain has ruled out the use of ground forces, but some of the more hawkish cabinet members such as the chancellor, George Osborne, only said ground forces were "ruled out for the moment".

In the Commons debate Labour will call for an explicit guarantee that British ground troops will not be involved.

But in a boost to the coalition, there were signs that some of the much-trailed practical Arab involvement in the air strikes had finally materialised – after Qatar last night sent four planes to work alongside the French in the second round of attacks designed to set up a no fly zone across Libya.

Britain is hopeful of further input from the United Arab Emirates, following calls by Fox. Arab political support, and military participation is vital to reduce the credibility of Gaddafi's claims that this is a western act of aggression against a Muslim country.

In an effort to reassure Arab opinion, Fox stressed plans to hand some of the co-ordination of the operation to Nato would allow a wider group of participants. But the attacks were under UN auspices.

In the US, the Obama administration was more restrained in its language. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, insisted the campaign was only a limited, humanitarian operation, not a war, and was not aimed at regime change, as both Cameron and Sarkozy have suggested.

"The goals of this campaign are limited. It is not about seeing him [Gaddafi] go. It is about supporting the UN resolution."

Asked if the mission could be accomplished with Gaddafi still in power, Mullen replied: "This is one outcome."

The Pentagon has been reluctant to become engaged in a third war against a Muslim country in the space of a decade and pressed Barack Obama on the dangers of mission creep.

Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said that Obama had given them assurances on that and the Pentagon was satisfied.

Mullen and other US commanders said that although the US had taken the lead in the first phase, there would be hand-over to the French and British, and the US would take a back seat role, restricted to tasks to which it was uniquely qualified, such as jamming Gaddafi's communications and providing refuelling of planes in the air.

John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, echoed Mullen over the mission goals, saying it was not a war. "This operation is not specifically geared to get rid of Gaddafi," he said.

The Republican senator Lindsey Graham, speaking on Fox News Sunday, said he was troubled by Obama's lack of enthusiasm, after the president went ahead with a trip to Latin America.

"I'm very worried that we're taking a back seat rather than a leadership role," Graham said.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 03:02:24 PM
Samantha Power, Irish-born aide, key to Obama Libya attack policy
IrishCentral.com ^ | March 20, 2011 | JAMES ROBERTS


________________________ ________________________ _________________


America’s decision to support military action against the Ghadaffi regime in Libya was heavily influenced by Samantha Power, the Irish-born National Security Council special advisor to President Obama on human rights.

Power and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were named by The New York Times as the two key figures who convinced first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then President Obama to commit to force.

The Times reported that “The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity.

“Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate


(Excerpt) Read more at irishcentral.com ...


________________________ ___________________


WWWWTTTTFFFFF? ? ?   This crazy bitch is as far to the left as it gets.  This cant be good at all.  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5XxXm8wPE


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 03:28:34 PM
News Flash - Missiles raining down on Ghadaffi's compound!!!
FOX News ^ | 3-20-2011 | FOX Live




Just breaking on TV between Admiral John Stufflebeem and FOX News host


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 03:40:42 PM
Power and Rice are two people that need to be removed from duty.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 03:53:00 PM
Power and Rice are two people that need to be removed from duty.



This whole thing really does not sit well with me.  We are being lied to again.  First it was NFZ, now its already on to bombing his compound.  Something is not right. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 03:55:29 PM


This whole thing really does not sit well with me.  We are being lied to again.  First it was NFZ, now its already on to bombing his compound.  Something is not right.  

I knew that would happen. It went from a NFZ to forced removal of Qaddafi. Like I asked earlier today, what was the end-game of a NFZ? Keep Qaddafi in power but not let him fight? OK, then they're going to have to hang around for a long time because as soon as they leave he's going to finish the job.

The Euros know they can't leave Qaddafi in power as they'll most likely pay down the road for it. Of course we've been strung along by two arrogants c*nts working in conjunction with the Euros and Arab League.

Everything I've seen about Susan Rice makes her look like one dumb bitch. Power is no better.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 04:02:21 PM
Do we even know who is going to take ver once gadaffi is gone?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 04:09:20 PM
Do we even know who is going to take ver once gadaffi is gone?

Of course not. Will be another Islamist state. But ask a far-lefty and they'll tell you "someone who loves democracy and is tolerant and accepting of others".  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 04:13:22 PM
Of course not. Will be another Islamist state. But ask a far-lefty and they'll tell you "someone who loves democracy and is tolerant and accepting of others".  ::)


Seeing some of the posts at the DUmpster and at HP I just shook my head.   These deluded leftistsare so taken with obama, its beyond a cult at this point.   

I really dont know what to say anymore the lengths people will go to defend this admn.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 04:15:42 PM

Seeing some of the posts at the DUmpster and at HP I just shook my head.   These deluded leftistsare so taken with obama, its beyond a cult at this point.   

I really dont know what to say anymore the lengths people will go to defend this admn.   

What cracks me up about these interventionist leftists is that the human rights violations in Iraq put those taking place in Libya to shame. So, by their own support for intervention in Libya, they're also justifying intervention in Iraq. They can't even keep their ideologies straight.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 04:24:01 PM
What cracks me up about these interventionist leftists is that the human rights violations in Iraq put those taking place in Libya to shame. So, by their own support for intervention in Libya, they're also justifying intervention in Iraq. They can't even keep their ideologies straight.

As Batchelor was mentioning the other night - in Bahrain they have govt snipers on roof tops taking out unarmed people on sight as fast as they can.  yet these same deluded obamacultists say not a word.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 20, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
As Batchelor was mentioning the other night - in Bahrain they have govt snipers on roof tops taking out unarmed people on sight as fast as they can.  yet these same deluded obamacultists say not a word.   

Same stuff is going on in Yemen, too. I was reading that something like 50 people were killed in a few minutes the other day when some guys opened fire on the protesters.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 20, 2011, 05:25:02 PM
With no debate and no objective, Obama enters a war
Washington Examiner ^ | 3/20/2011 | Timothy P. Carney




At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.

Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's lazy leadership.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 04:09:16 AM
Expect troops soon
NY Post ^ | March 20, 2011 | Arthur Herman




With the UN-mandated imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya, President Obama has now thrust us into our third Mideast shooting war. The predecessor he used to criticize for recklessly sending Americans into harm's way in order to impose our values on others -- George W. Bush -- must be feeling slightly vindicated.

Former President Bill Clinton is surely getting a sense of déjà vu, too. More than anyone, he knows the costs and risks of imposing no-fly zones, even on a fourth-rate power like Libya. Given Clinton's experience with no-flys over Bosnia in 1993-5 and over Iraq during the same decade, here's what history shows the American public can expect:

First, this will be largely a US military operation. Don't be fooled by the fact that British and French jets struck first or the administration's claim that the US will be taking a back seat to NATO and the Arab League. Only our Navy and Air Force have the lift and muscle to sustain a campaign of this kind -- and to take up the leadership slack.

This means a US general or admiral should be the person clearly in charge. There must be no split US/NATO command structure of the kind that nearly derailed operations in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and no UN blue berets of the kind that stood by during the Rwanda genocide.

Second, don't be surprised if some "allies" don't stick. The Arab League, the folks who got us into this, have already criticized the Western airstrikes to enforce a no-fly zone they themselves demanded. And the rebels we're helping (like those we protected in Bosnia and Kosovo and today in Afghanistan) have their own agenda -- and with Libya's oil wealth, there's more at stake.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 04:44:50 AM
White House to CNN: Obama "Ferociously Working" to Prop Up Arab League Libya Support
Sunday, March 20, 2011 | Kristinn




Ed Henry on CNN from Brazil says the White House is telling him that Obama is "ferociously working behind the scenes" to prop up faltering Arab League support for the bombing campaign in Libya.

Henry says Obama specifically called Jordan's King Abdullah.

________________________ ________________________ _____

Yeah, even they are pissed off obama lied to them.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 05:59:20 AM
Two faced Arab League condemns coalition bombings. Do want them on your side in any conflict?
American Thinker ^ | 03/21/2011 | Rick Moran


The head of the Arab League Amr Moussa, has condemned the allied bombing outside of Benghazi, saying the action "differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone," and what he wants is "the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians."

The Washington Post:


Moussa's declaration suggested some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, Middle Eastern leaders and their peoples traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.
A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would constitute an important setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Fidel Castro of Cuba condemned the intervention and suggested Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya's oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.

Tell me you'd want these guys on your side in any conflict.

The Arab League has the staying power of a soap bubble. In 48 hours they will be calling themselves for a cease fire. And it should be noted, that nowhere in their statement urging a no fly zone did they mention regime change in Libya. What are they going to think if we make that part of the mission?

Stay tuned for more, and louder betrayals from our friends in the Arab world.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 08:28:56 AM
U.S.-led airstrikes to help al-Qaida?
WND ^ | 3/20/2011 | Aaron Klein





JERUSALEM – Arab leaders fear U.S. and international airstrikes against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces will aid the main Islamist opposition in the country, some of which consist of al-Qaida.

"Doesn't the Obama administration understand Gadhafi is the one Arab leader who is fighting back against the Islamist revolt threatening his regime?" asked a member of the now deposed regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

A top official in the Palestinian Authority, speaking from Ramallah, told WND it is widely understood in the that the military strikes against Gadhafi's positions will aid the Libyan rebels, whose leadership largely comprise Islamist groups that seek to create a Muslim caliphate.

Indeed, yesterday the Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said he would call a new league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.

[Snip]

Libya's official news agency has reported al-Qaida forces attacked Libyan government armed forces in recent weeks, including west of Benghazi.

"Al-Qaida will establish jihad in Northern Africa, and the West will have to oppose the dangerous challenges, triggering a new crusade," Gadhafi told the Russia...

[Snip]

Just last week, the British media reported WikiLeaks cables from 2008 identified parts of Libya, Dernah in particular, as a breeding ground for fighters in a number of causes, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The unemployed, disfranchised young men of eastern Libya have nothing to lose and are therefore willing to sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves by engaging in extremism in the name of religion," the cables quoted a Dernah businessman as saying.

Even Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, last week said he was wary that al-Qaida affiliates in North Africa could try to take advantage of the upheaval in Libya, seeking a new foothold.


(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 21, 2011, 08:34:26 AM
Obama should be impeached and tried for war crimes! Isn't that what the leftists wanted with Bush and Iraq?

Obama = warmonger, imperialist, oil thief! Slave to the Europeans and Arab League!!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 08:38:38 AM
Obama should be impeached and tried for war crimes! Isn't that what the leftists wanted with Bush and Iraq?

Obama = warmonger, imperialist, oil thief! Slave to the Europeans and Arab League!!!!

The spinning by TeamKneepad is beyond anything i have seen in my entire life. 

They are cultists of the messiah, plain and simple. 

T


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 21, 2011, 08:42:01 AM
The spinning by TeamKneepad is beyond anything i have seen in my entire life. 

They are cultists of the messiah, plain and simple. 

T

There was an opinion piece on CNN yesterday titled "Why Libya 2011 is not like Iraq 2003" that was full of nothing but rambling, incoherent justifications and excuses for why Obama isn't a warmonger like Bush was.

Obama = slave to Europe and the Arabs. It took less than 48 hours for the Arabs to stab us in the back and I'm sure it's coming from the Europeans, too.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 08:44:57 AM
There was an opinion piece on CNN yesterday titled "Why Libya 2011 is not like Iraq 2003" that was full of nothing but rambling, incoherent justifications and excuses for why Obama isn't a warmonger like Bush was.

Obama = slave to Europe and the Arabs. It took less than 48 hours for the Arabs to stab us in the back and I'm sure it's coming from the Europeans, too.

I saw all sorts of typical spinning today.   Unreal.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 09:11:18 AM
I wish my grandma could sling an AK. 



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 21, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
I dont agree with it at all...but without the politics and shit slinging (which tires me till no end) what are the comparisons between "find wmd and iraqi freedom" (i think it was the same war)
and the lybia thing.
and what is your stance..should the US involved itself in this war.

this is for real like with out all the political partyline bullshit.. it just gets tiresome at times..
what are your thoughts


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: George Whorewell on March 21, 2011, 09:27:22 AM
I dont agree with it at all...but without the politics and shit slinging (which tires me till no end) what are the comparisons between "find wmd and iraqi freedom" (i think it was the same war)
and the lybia thing.
and what is your stance..should the US involved itself in this war.

this is for real like with out all the political partyline bullshit.. it just gets tiresome at times..
what are your thoughts

I think that your being overly negative and have a hostile attitude. Furthermore, your antipathy for those who think differently than you is visceral and divisive. I think that you have been blinded by Fox News and the right wing talk radio hatemongers. You're a card carrying democrat and are of a minority persuasion. Therefore, you are not allowed to think for yourself or criticize the Obama administration.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 21, 2011, 09:30:36 AM
I think that your being overly negative and have a hostile attitude. Furthermore, your antipathy for those who think differently than you is visceral and divisive. I think that you have been blinded by Fox News and the right wing talk radio hatemongers. You're a card carrying democrat and are of a minority persuasion. Therefore, you are not allowed to think for yourself or criticize the Obama administration.


lol.. havent i come out in opposition of like everything he has done policy wise?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 09:30:56 AM
I dont agree with it at all...but without the politics and shit slinging (which tires me till no end) what are the comparisons between "find wmd and iraqi freedom" (i think it was the same war)
and the lybia thing.
and what is your stance..should the US involved itself in this war.

this is for real like with out all the political partyline bullshit.. it just gets tiresome at times..
what are your thoughts

My thoughts are that the world is on fire, and gadaffi is a terrorist, an evil pofs, but a needed stabilizing force against the al quadea, MB, jihadi, and other elements on the rise in the ME, especially in the Egypt.  There are enough hot spots than to open up a 3rd war.    


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 10:24:20 AM
Dem Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil"
RealClearPolitics ^ | March 21, 2011 | RealClearPolitics





"We're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and this dependence we have on imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said on MSNBC.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 02:23:59 PM
Sr. WH Official on Libya: Obama 'straining' truth; "Huge gamble" may benefit al Qaeda
Monday, March 21, 2011 | Kristinn

www.freerepublic.com






Well, that didn't take long. A "senior Obama administration official" is breaking ranks to call out his boss in Time magazine about Libya.

In an article published online Sunday night, Time writer Massimo Calabresi buries the lede by holding the bombshell quotes until the fourth paragraph, preferring to write about himself the first three.

The quotes have the official all but calling Obama a liar over his stated reasons for going to war in Libya. The article also has the official saying Obama is knowingly taking a "huge gamble" because al Qaeda has cells in Libya that could benefit from the the assault on Qaddafi's regime.

The ability for the U.S. to muster international force to prevent thugs from killing innocent people is important. But the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they're exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That's dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war. Moreover, the rhetorical focus on the crazy things Gaddafi might do obscures the debate America should have before intervening: does the value of preventing possible war crimes against Libyans outweigh the risks to America's national security that come with intervening?

Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It's a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi. They also know that the U.S. will have to rely on other countries for the crucial task of rebuilding Libya and that the region may in fact be further destabilized by intervention. Outweighing that, the National Security Council's Ben Rhodes says, are the long-term benefits of saving lives, protecting the possibility of democratic change elsewhere in the region and—tellingly—ensuring “the ability of collective action to be a tool in circumstances like this.”

The thrust of the article is that the war in Libya will help the view of proponents in the administration to lay the predicate for future 'humanitarian' wars. However the important part is that the administration is knowingly risking aiding al Qaeda while 'straining' the truth about explaining the intervention to the American people.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 21, 2011, 02:34:02 PM
I think that your being overly negative and have a hostile attitude. Furthermore, your antipathy for those who think differently than you is visceral and divisive. I think that you have been blinded by Fox News and the right wing talk radio hatemongers. You're a card carrying democrat and are of a minority persuasion. Therefore, you are not allowed to think for yourself or criticize the Obama administration.

you constantly bring up race in your threads..I wonder why???.....you are obsessed with the fact that people don't criticize Obama because he is black....do we say the same about you and white politicians?..you can always tell when someone has no argument..they then play the race card....you are obsessed with black people and what they are thinking....get a grip man....also....

racist post reported


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 21, 2011, 02:36:17 PM
Obama should be impeached and tried for war crimes! Isn't that what the leftists wanted with Bush and Iraq?

Obama = warmonger, imperialist, oil thief! Slave to the Europeans and Arab League!!!!

keep going ..you are hilarious.... ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 21, 2011, 02:37:28 PM
There was an opinion piece on CNN yesterday titled "Why Libya 2011 is not like Iraq 2003" that was full of nothing but rambling, incoherent justifications and excuses for why Obama isn't a warmonger like Bush was.

Obama = slave to Europe and the Arabs. It took less than 48 hours for the Arabs to stab us in the back and I'm sure it's coming from the Europeans, too.


still laughing at you....this is so entertaining..keep going..please..don't stop :D  your posts are so dumb its amazing


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 21, 2011, 02:40:24 PM
4 weeks later and you still won't even refute Ferguson's article. You're a joke.

Feel free to continually respond to my posts with your "still laughing" line. It really cuts me deep.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 21, 2011, 02:43:12 PM
4 weeks later and you still won't even refute Ferguson's article. You're a joke.

Feel free to continually respond to my posts with your "still laughing" line. It really cuts me deep.  ::)

responding to Ferguson's article makes no sense because as I've said you are not a critical thinker..you just spout the same line over and over..it never changes....you have no insight....and yes..I will keep laughing at you....you are just so hilarious I can't help it....THINK :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 05:39:36 PM
NATIONAL SECURITY
Costs of Libya Operation Already Piling Up
by Megan Scully

Monday, March 21, 2011 | 6:34 p.m.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?print=true


 
GIUSEPPE CACACE/AFP/Getty ImagesA U.S. F-16 fighter jet takes off from Aviano Air Base in Italy on Sunday. The cost of the first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn topped $100 million.


With U.N. coalition forces bombarding Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi from the sea and air, the United States’ part in the operation could ultimately hit several billion dollars -- and require the Pentagon to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it.

The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone. And the U.S. military, which remains in the lead now in its third day, has pumped millions more into air- and sea-launched strikes targeting air-defense sites and ground-force positions along Libya’s coastline.

The ultimate total that the United States spends will hinge on the length and scope of the strikes as well as on the contributions of its coalition allies. But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Monday that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.”

The Pentagon has the money in its budget to cover unexpected contingencies and can also use fourth-quarter dollars to cover the costs of operations now. “They’re very used to doing this operation where they borrow from Peter to pay Paul,” said Gordon Adams, who served as the Office of Management and Budget’s associate director for national security during the Clinton administration.

However, there comes a point when there simply isn’t enough cash to pay for everything. The White House said on Monday it was not prepared to request emergency funding yet, but former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim estimated that the Defense Department would need to send a request for supplemental funding to Capitol Hill if the U.S. military’s share of Libya operations expenses tops $1 billion.

"The operation in Libya is being funded with existing resources at this point. We are not planning to request a supplemental at this time," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

Such a request would likely be met with mixed reactions in a Congress focused on deficit reduction. And while many key lawmakers have been agitating for action in Libya, others have been more reluctant and have urged the Obama administration to send them a declaration of war.

Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., says Congress should have had the opportunity to weigh in on what he said will be “a very expensive operation, even in a limited way.”

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Lugar said, “It’s a strange time in which almost all of our congressional days are spent talking about budget deficits, outrageous problems. And yet [at the] same time, all of this passes.”

So far, the operation appears to be focused on creating a limited no-fly zone mostly targeting the capital city of Tripoli, which is Qaddafi’s stronghold, and other areas along the coast. That will require a wide range of military assets.

In a report released earlier this month, Harrison estimated that the initial stages of taking out Qaddafi’s coastal air defenses could ultimately cost coalition forces between $400 million and $800 million. But the coalition is now targeting his ground forces in an effort to protect civilians—a factor that Harrison said will drive up the initial costs of the operation.

“At some point, though, we will have degraded his forces to the point that there are not that many targets left,” Harrison said. “So we’d expect to see the sortie rate start to drop off.”

Meanwhile, Harrison initially estimated that maintaining a coastal no-fly zone after those initial strikes would cost in the range of $30 million to $100 million per week. If the coalition continues to strike ground targets, the weekly costs would be closer to the higher range, he said.

These unanticipated costs come at a time when the Pentagon is putting pressure on Capitol Hill to pass its fiscal 2011 budget. Continuing to operate under a stopgap continuing resolution through September, senior Defense officials argue, would amount to a $23 billion cut to the military’s request for the current fiscal year, which began October 1. The Pentagon wants $708.3 billion for this year, including $159.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the U.S. military, the highest costs of the operations over Libya come in the form of pricey munitions, fuel for aircraft, and combat pay for deployed troops -- all factors that will pile up each day U.S. forces remain at the helm of the operation.

On the first day of strikes alone, U.S.-led forces launched 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost about $1 million to $1.5 million apiece, from ships stationed off the Libyan coast. That totaled $112 million to $168 million. Since those first strikes, U.S. and British forces have launched at least another 12 Tomahawk missiles.

The Defense Department typically buys about 200 Tomahawks a year. While the military likely can put off buying new missiles for months, it will ultimately need to boost planned procurement rates to refill its stockpile.

Defense budget watchers said the deployment of guided missile destroyers and submarines would not put a major dent in the Pentagon’s accounts because the ships were already deployed to the region. But the U.S. military has tapped its B-2 bombers as well as F-15 and F-16 fighter jets to strike a number of targets, undoubtedly forcing an immediate uptick in the military’s operations and maintenance expenditures, including fuel costs.

The military flew the three bombers deployed for the mission from Missouri’s Whiteman Air Force Base, a nearly 12,000-mile round trip that will incur significant fuel and maintenance costs, Harrison said.

Meanwhile, it generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft. The B-2s dropped 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMS, which are 2,000-pound bombs that cost between $30,000 and $40,000 apiece to replace.

On the personnel front, special pay for soldiers involved in the operation will kick in immediately -- unlike the munitions costs, which the Pentagon can defer.

Ultimately, the length and scale of the operation -- and of the U.S. role in it -- will be key to how much it costs. A weeklong operation involving a limited number of U.S. troops would be manageable within the existing defense budget. But if Odyssey Dawn drags on for weeks and months, the Pentagon would likely have to do some maneuvering to replenish its accounts.

For now, the United States continues to lead operations, although U.S. military leaders insist that control will soon be transferred to an as-yet unnamed coalition leader.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the Odyssey Dawn operational commander, told reporters on Monday that allies are stepping up to shoulder much of the mission. There were 60 sorties flown on Sunday, about half by U.S. aircraft. But on Monday, coalition allies were expected to fly more than half of the day’s 70 to 80 sorties.

Complicating matters, however, is the fact that most of the coalition nations’ militaries, which operate on a fraction of the Pentagon’s yearly allowance, are grappling with budget pressures of their own. While the Defense Department hopes to transfer control to coalition partners in the coming days, the longer the operations over Libya continue, the more difficult it will be for allies to take the lead.

“If it goes on more than a month, we’re going to be in the forefront [of operations] or we’re going to let Qaddafi stick around,” predicted former Defense comptroller Zakheim, who served under President George W. Bush. “The choices aren’t very pleasant.”

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ Harrison coauthored a report offering a historical analysis of the price for operations similar to the one in Libya that provides costs for several different scenarios. Those range from a sweeping and high-priced effort to impose and maintain a no-fly zone over the entire country to a much smaller no-fly zone with limited flyovers and few, if any, attacks on Libyan air-defense or ground-force targets. The current operation appears to fall somewhere between those two scenarios.

Zack Cooper, a senior analyst at the think tank who coauthored the study with Harrison, acknowledged that the operation’s costs are still too difficult to estimate because of lingering questions following the weekend strikes.

“Since we don’t yet know the length, magnitude, or degree of U.S. involvement, any cost projections are going to be very rough estimates at this point,” Cooper said.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 06:12:39 PM

stein@huffingtonpost.com
 GET UPDATES FROM Sam
Like.
1KObama Administration: There Are No Current Plans To Ask Congress For Libya Funds
 
Posted: 03/21/11 05:57 PM



 WASHINGTON -- Among the features of America’s military involvement in Libyan airspace that has given some lawmakers pause: the cost. At a time when belt-tightening is the domestic political rage, writing checks to help support a no-fly zone half a world away has, for some critics, raised the question of President Barack Obama's budget priorities.

On Monday, National Journal tallied costs from the first day of Libya air strikes, estimating that the launch of more than 100 tomahawk missiles totaled somewhere from $112 million to $168 million. Within that range lie the cuts that House Republicans have proposed to the National Weather Service budget -- money that would be used for, among other things, tsunami-warning systems.

According to administration officials, however, the choice facing the president is not an either/or, since there are no current plans to ask Congress for a supplemental bill to pay for the military intervention in Libya.

"The operation in Libya is being funded with existing resources at this point. We are not planning to request a supplemental at this time,” Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said Monday.

That seems to indicate the administration's confidence that the military mission will be brief, as White House officials have insisted -- though if historical precedent is any guide, the president could likely secure additional funds for a longer campaign should he press Congress for them. Some lawmakers, however, worry that the no-fly zone, pitched as a mere days-long commitment, will serve as a gateway to a larger military engagement.

Under law, the Defense Department has a great deal of discretion over its funding and the upward adjustment of early cost estimates. Tomahawk missiles, for instance, can be fired without immediately being replaced.

But congressional officials predict that the well on flexible Pentagon funds will run dry at around $1 billion. Beyond that, Congress will have to appropriate more funds.

“We will probably have to do a supplemental this year,” a top House aide said. “Unless they drastically curtail these activities.”

A spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee told The Huffington Post that the committee is in contact with the Pentagon as to what “the expectations and the needs may be” in terms of further involvement in Libya. As of early Monday afternoon, however, the spokesman said the committee had received no response.




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 21, 2011, 06:17:03 PM
responding to Ferguson's article makes no sense because as I've said you are not a critical thinker..you just spout the same line over and over..it never changes....you have no insight....and yes..I will keep laughing at you....you are just so hilarious I can't help it....THINK :D

What a sorry excuse. You can't refute Ferguson because you are a sheep who has no idea what he's talking about. Hence....your....moronic ....responses.... ::)

Pathetic.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 06:57:21 PM
Allies Attack Targets in Tripoli as Europeans Feud Over Leadership
New York Times ^


Allies Attack Targets in Tripoli as Europeans Feud Over Leadership By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK AND KAREEM FAHIM

TRIPOLI, Libya — Explosions and anti-aircraft fire could be heard in and around Tripoli Monday in a third straight night of attacks there against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, while European nations feuded over who should take command of the no-fly zone. On the ground in Libya, pro-Qaddafi forces were holding out against the allied campaign and an amateurish rebel counterattack.

Pentagon officials said there were fewer American and coalition airstrikes in Libya Sunday night and Monday, and that the number was likely to decline further in coming days. But Gen. Carter F. Ham, the head of United States Africa Command, who is in charge of the coalition effort, said there would be coalition airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s mobile air defenses and that some 80 sorties — only half of them by the United States — had been flown on Monday.

President Obama said that the initial stages of the operation aimed at eliminating Libyan air defenses were being coordinated by the American forces, who would then turn over full responsibility to their partners to establish and maintain a no-fly zone. But it is still “U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go,” he said at a news conference in Santiago, Chile, with that country’s president, Sebastian Pinera. “We have got a wide range of tools in addition to our military effort to support that policy,” he said, citing economic sanctions, the freezing of assets and other measures to isolate the regime in Tripoli.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 21, 2011, 06:58:53 PM
Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya- TIME


President Barack Obama says he’s intervening to prevent atrocities in Libya. But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he’s going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea…the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they’re exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That’s dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war.

Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It’s a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi.

“On the military side there was a lot of skepticism in the initial days that a no-fly zone by itself was going to achieve what we wanted militarily,” says a senior administration official. Another senior administration official is blunter: “[Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates tried to stop it.”

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/20/why-the-u-s-went-to-war-inside-the-white-house-debate-on-libya/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Damn, even liberal SLIME is calling Obama out.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 21, 2011, 07:00:53 PM
impeach


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 04:05:39 AM
Libya stalemate feared as West slows airstrikes (What was the point of US Military action?)
msnbc ^ | 3/22/2011 | msnbc




TRIPOLI, Libya — Anti-aircraft fire rang out across Tripoli for a third night as air attacks were reported in the capital and on targets in eastern Libya.

But a U.S. general said allied bombing raids were likely to become less frequent as Washington holds back from being sucked into the Libyan civil war.

"My sense is that — that unless something unusual or unexpected happens, we may see a decline in the frequency of attacks," General Carter Ham, who is leading U.S. forces in the Libyan operation, told reporters in Washington.

Ham said it was possible that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi might manage to retain power.

"I don't think anyone would say that is ideal," the general said Monday, foreseeing a possible outcome that stands in contrast to President Barack Obama's declaration that Gadhafi must go.

The Libyan leader has ruled the North African nation for 42 years and was a target of American air attacks in 1986.


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 04:30:47 AM
John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War
Email John Hawkins


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/03/22/7_questions_for_liberals_about_obamas_libyan_war/page/full






It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn't this is a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he's still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn't have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama's real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was "No blood for oil!" What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there's no compelling reason for America to invade....except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting "No blood for oil?"

4) Where are the massive protests? Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing!

5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddaffi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn't have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya's culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn't it? That we were creating terrorists?

That's why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a "war of choice" in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it's because Obama chose to put them in harm's way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it's because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 04:51:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkuc8L8uf8


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 22, 2011, 05:19:51 AM
of course its an illegal war.

is anyone really arguing that?

however, the president has, for the last 10 years, done whatever the fck he wants, without consequence.

Bush practically let 911 happen, invaded iraq on some BS, deleted 4 million emails, lost trillions on 9/10/2001, and did a bunch of other shit - and he just plain got away with it.

Obama looked at it and bitched for years - then realized "Hey, I can abuse power too, and people can't do jack shit!"

So, this is what you get, shitheads.  You laughed when bush did whatever the hell he wanted, just because it got the libs all pissy.  Now the libs are laughing as King Obama shits on the economy and does whatever he wants on libya.  He's just using the leash that bush left behind. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 05:28:15 AM
of course its an illegal war.

is anyone really arguing that?

however, the president has, for the last 10 years, done whatever the fck he wants, without consequence.

Bush practically let 911 happen, invaded iraq on some BS, deleted 4 million emails, lost trillions on 9/10/2001, and did a bunch of other shit - and he just plain got away with it.

Obama looked at it and bitched for years - then realized "Hey, I can abuse power too, and people can't do jack shit!"

So, this is what you get, shitheads.  You laughed when bush did whatever the hell he wanted, just because it got the libs all pissy.  Now the libs are laughing as King Obama shits on the economy and does whatever he wants on libya.  He's just using the leash that bush left behind. 


Like i said


bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 22, 2011, 05:34:13 AM
Like i said
bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   


actually, reagan did a shitload of dirt.  Bush1, lol...
CLinton?  you know the CTs
Bush did whatever the fck he wanted.
Obama just doing what the rest of em did.

it is what it is.  All you're doing is whining about the same shit everyone does.  kinda pointless.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 05:51:15 AM
From Iraq to Libya, Obama Becomes a Hypocrite
Townhall.com ^ | March 22, 2011 | Mona Charen


________________________ ________________________ _____


In the Democratic primary campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama scored points because he, unlike many Democrats, had opposed the Iraq War from the start. Though a state senator at the time of the 2002 congressional vote authorizing military action, Obama had delivered a speech to an anti-war rally in Chicago.

He said, "I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama was unpersuaded: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

As American forces join the war against Moammar Gadhafi, the nation is entitled to an explanation. How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against "dumb" wars) or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

Certainly, with an army of only 50,000, Gadhafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Gadhafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam was "a ruthless man ... who butchers his own people to secure his power." Yet that didn't justify a war, state Sen. Obama told us.

Sen. Obama did not believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors -- though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Yet Gadhafi has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.

While Obama (like the rest of the world) was convinced that Saddam had "developed chemical and biological weapons" -- and though he knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

How are Obama's motives regarding military action against Moammar Gadhafi less "cynical" than those he was so contemptuous of in Wolfowitz and Perle? What "ideological agenda" was the Bush administration "shoving down our throats" that Obama is not himself duplicating? Is he opposed to the freedom agenda? What, exactly, was so obnoxious about the Bush program?

How has Obama concluded that a war against another Middle East villain is now justified and not "dumb" or "rash"? And on what principle can President Obama now decline to intervene on behalf of other freedom fighters around the globe?

We don't know, because unlike George Bush, who took his case for war to the American people through a vote in the United States Congress (with 110 Democrats voting in favor), President Obama has acted unilaterally -- putting our forces into harm's way based solely on his power as commander in chief. (Code Pink -- call your office!) If he is relying upon the vote in the United Nations as his mandate for military action, he is establishing a new principle of diminished U.S. sovereignty. American forces can now be ordered into action by the president and the U.N. but without the U.S. Congress?

On most of the foreign and security policy issues he preened himself about -- the folly of deposing despots, closing the prison at Guantanamo, using military tribunals to try terrorists, and withdrawing from Iraq, President Obama has reversed himself.

He has performed these reversals without explanation and without apology for his shrill condemnation of his predecessor. He condemned Bush's "ideology," but his own foreign policy seems to have amounted to marketing the image of himself as the first African-American president and the first Muslim-sympathetic president. Image-making is easier than policymaking -- and when it came time for decisions, President Obama dissolved into incoherence.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 22, 2011, 05:52:51 AM

Like i said


bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   

It's pretty sad. I can't think of a single instance since Obama was elected that 240 has actually criticized his messiah without justifying his actions by comparing him to Bush or Palin.

"Of course I don't support Obama's decision but Bush did this, this, and this so it's OK."  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 06:30:31 AM
March 22, 2011
America's Descent Into Strategic Dementia
By Caroline Glick

www.realclearpolitics.co m




What the US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion.

The US's new war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is the latest sign of its steady regional decline. In media interviews over the weekend, US military chief Adm. Michael Mullen was hard-pressed to explain either the goal of the military strikes in Libya or their strategic rationale.

 
 Receive news alerts

Sign Up   
Caroline Glick RealClearPolitics
Egypt Middle East

foreign policy Barack Obama
Libya

  • More
 
Mullen's difficulty explaining the purpose of this new war was indicative of the increasing irrationality of US foreign policy.

Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.


Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US's ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.

These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.

Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.

Before considering the deleterious impact this descent into strategic dementia has had on US interests, it is necessary to consider the motivations of the various sides to the foreign policy debate in the US today.

All of the sides have contributed to the fact that US Middle East policy is now firmly submerged in a morass of strategic insanity.

The first side in the debate is the anti-imperialist camp, represented by President Barack Obama himself. Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama's foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.

Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism.

Given his view, Obama's instincts dictate that he do nothing to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East. Consider his policies towards Iran. The Iranian regime threatens all of the US's core regional interests.

And yet, Obama has refused to lift a finger against the mullahs.

Operating under the assumption that US enemies are right to hate America due to its global hegemony, when the mullahs stole the 2009 presidential elections for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then violently repressed the pro-Western opposition Green Movement, Obama sided with the mullahs.

Aside from its imperative to lash out at Israel, Obama's ideological predisposition would permit him to happily sit on the sidelines and do nothing against US foe or friend alike. But given Obama's basic suspicion of US allies, to the extent he has bowed to pressure to take action in the Middle East, he has always done so to the detriment of US allies.

Obama's treatment of ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is case in point.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition protests began in late January, Obama was perfectly happy to do nothing despite the US's overwhelming national interest in preserving Mubarak in power. But when faced with domestic pressure to intervene against Mubarak, he did so with a vengeance.

Not only did Obama force Mubarak to resign. He prevented Mubarak from resigning in September and so ensured that the Brotherhood would dominate the transition period to the new regime.

Obama's most outspoken opponents in the US foreign policy debate are the neoconservatives.

Like Obama, the neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US's core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny.

In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives' view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational.

The problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.

If there is noticeable opposition to tyrants, then the US must support that opposition.

This view is what informed the neoconservative bid to oust Mubarak last month and Gaddafi this month.

The fracture between the Obama camp and the neoconservative camp came to a head with Libya. Obama wished to sit on the sidelines and the neoconservatives pushed for intervention.

To an even greater degree than in Egypt, the debate was settled by the third US foreign policy camp - the opportunists. Led today by Clinton, the opportunist camp supports whoever they believe is going to make them most popular with the media and Europe.

In the case of Libya, the opportunist interests dictated military intervention against Gaddafi. Europe opposes Gaddafi because the French and the British bet early on that his opponents were winning. France recognized the opposition as the legitimate government two weeks ago.

Once Gaddafi's counteroffensive began, France and Britain realized they would be harmed politically and economically if Gaddafi maintained power so they began calling for military strikes to overthrow him.

As for the media, they were quick to romanticize the amorphous "opposition" as freedom fighters.

Seeing the direction of the wind, Clinton jumped on the European-media bandwagon and forced Obama to agree to a military operation whose goal no one can define.

Wwhat the US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion. Consequently, it should surprise no one that none of the policies the US is implementing in the region advance those core interests in any way. Indeed, they are being severely damaged.

Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced US interests in two main ways. First, by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened the regional forces that most threatened US interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.

Since Mubarak was ousted, the ruling military junta has taken actions that signal that Egypt is no longer interested in behaving in a manner that advances US interests.

Domestically, the junta has embarked on a course that all but guarantees the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in the fall.

Saturday's referendum on constitutional amendments was a huge victory for the Brotherhood on two counts. First, it cemented Islamic law as the primary source of legislation and so paved the way for the Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an Islamic state. Under Mubarak, that constitutional article meant nothing. Under the Brotherhood, it means everything.

Second, it set the date for parliamentary elections for September. Only the Brotherhood, and remnants of Mubarak's National Democratic Party will be ready to stand for election so soon. The liberals have no chance of mounting a coherent campaign in just six months.

In anticipation of the Brotherhood's rise to power, the military has begun realigning Egypt into the Iranian camp. This realignment is seen most openly in Egypt's new support for Hamas. Mubarak opposed Hamas because it is part of the Brotherhood.

The junta supports it for the same reason. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby has already called for the opening of Egypt's border with Hamasruled Gaza.

There can be little doubt Hamas's massive rocket barrage against Israel on Saturday was the product of its sense that Egypt is now on its side.

As for the Suez Canal, the junta's behavior so far is a cause for alarm. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1747 from 2007 bars Iran from shipping arms. Yet last month the junta thumbed its nose at international law and permitted two Iranian naval ships to traverse the canal without being inspected.

According to military sources, one of the ships carried advanced armaments. These were illicitly transferred to the German merchant ship Victoria at Syria's Latakia port. Last week, IDF naval commandos interdicted the Victoria with its Iranian weaponry en route to Gaza via Alexandria.

Add to that Egypt's decision to abrogate its contractual obligation to supply Israel with natural gas and we see that the junta is willing to suspend its commitment to international law in order to realign its foreign policy with Iran.

On every level, a post-Mubarak Egypt threatens the US core interests that Mubarak advanced.

Then there is Libya. One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi's former ministers.

But while these men - who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle - are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC's 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi's opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Under jihadist commander Abu Yahya Al- Libi, Libyan jihadists staged anti-regime uprisings in the mid-1990s. Like today, those uprisings' central hubs were Benghazi and Darnah.

In 2007 Al-Libi merged his forces into al- Qaida. On March 18, while denouncing the US, France and Britain, Al-Libi called on his forces to overthrow Gaddafi.

A 2007 US Military Academy study of information on al-Qaida forces in Iraq indicate that by far, Eastern Libya made the largest per capita contribution to al-Qaida forces in Iraq.

None of this proves that the US is now assisting an al-Qaida takeover of Libya. But it certainly indicates that the forces being assisted by the US in Libya are probably no more sympathetic to US interests than Gaddafi is. At a minimum, the data indicate the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.

The significance of the US's descent into strategic irrationality bodes ill not just for US allies, but for America itself. Until the US foreign policy community is again able to recognize and work to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East, America's policies will threaten both its allies and itself.


caroline@carolineglick.com


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 06:37:18 AM
The Horrible Libya Hypocrisies
by Leslie H. Gelb
March 21, 2011 | 10:40pm
www.thedailybeast.com



Neocons and liberal interventionists stampeded Obama into imposing a no-fly zone against Libya—despite the absence of vital U.S. interests there. Leslie H. Gelb on the hypocrisy among world leaders and how the experts abuse historical analogies.

There's nothing like a foreign-policy crisis, real or imagined, to ignite the worst among world leaders and foreign-policy experts. Out pop the nuclear weapons of the trade: phony analogies and unabashed hypocrisy. The manufactured crisis in Libya is a prime case in point. No foreign states have vital interests at stake in Libya. Events in this rather odd and isolated land have little bearing on the rest of the tumultuous Mideast region. Also not to be dismissed, there are far, far worse humanitarian horrors elsewhere. Yet, U.S. neoconservatives and liberal humanitarian interventionists have trapped another U.S. president into acting as if the opposite were true.

 Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo; Luca Bruno / AP Photo
Once this terrible duo starts tossing out words like "slaughter" and "genocide," the media goes crazy. Then, the chorus begins to sing of heartless inaction by the U.S. president, blaming him for the deaths. White House common sense crumbles into insanity. The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there. It is only when a nation has a clear vital interest that it can state a clear objective for war. They've all simply been carried away by their own rhetoric.

The drama usually starts when leaders and thinkers are seduced by the feeling they must do good. Sometimes, they essentially ignore the killings, even as deaths climb into the hundreds of thousands, as in Rwanda and millions as in Congo. Other times, the deaths number in the hundreds or so, as in Libya—and the guy doing the killing is someone they have good reason to dislike, and so they want to do good and stop him. It was just so with the irresistible trio of Senators—John McCain, John Kerry, and Lindsay Graham—and with their counterparts in foreign-policy land.

The kneejerk reaction among interventionists is to see the blood and insist that the United States act right away. There's no time to deliberate, they say. Don't find out about who the rebels are. Don't worry about who else will help. Just do it! In the case of Libya, the call to action took flight as a "no-fly zone." They spoke of it like a pill that could cure cancer. At the time they first proposed it, the rebels in fact were winning the war and Col. Muammar Gaddafi had just begun to retaliate with planes and tanks. There was yet no endorsement to counter him from the Arab League or from the U.N. Security Council, but the interventionists screamed for action anyway. Imagine what the reaction would have been had Western bombs and missiles fell upon Libya without that prior approval.

No one should have deluded himself into believing that chasing Gaddafi's planes from the air would, by itself, save civilians on the ground. Saving those lives always depended mainly on hitting Gaddafi's ground forces—his tanks, artillery, and combat troops. Thus, imposing only a no-fly zone would have been largely symbolic. When it failed to stop Gaddafi's onslaught, voices would have been raised for escalation, for hitting ground targets—precisely as has happened in the last few days. If the goal was to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people, there never was an alternative to impairing or destroying his ground force capability.

The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there.

But it becomes increasingly difficult to nail down reality, especially when slogans like "no-fly zones" and "act now" are ennobled by reference to Shakespeare. For example, interventionists whose memories of the Bard have frayed might be tempted to compare themselves to Macbeth, a man of action, and portray Obama as Hamlet, a man of self-doubt and delay. Remember Macbeth's line about killing the king: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/ It were done quickly." So, Macbeth grabbed his dagger and killed the king right off. And boy did his quick action produce great results: The kingdom was shaken to its roots, his wife went crazy with guilt, and predictably, he was killed by a more rightful heir to the throne. And just as Macbeth's formidable decision-making process receives perennial praise, so does Hamlet get trashed for his supposed indecision and hesitation. Forget the fact that Hamlet's famous indecision was about killing himself ("To be, or not to be"), and not about whether he would seek vengeance on the king who had killed Hamlet's father and married his mother. But to today's foreign-policy experts, Hamlet committed an unforgivable sin: He waited for evidence that the new king had actually killed his father. Thus, he concocted the idea of a play within a play to draw out the new king's guilt. In other words, he violated the first principle of modern American foreign-policymaking: He sought hard evidence.

Historical analogies do as much damage to policymaking. Thus, inevitably, erupts the game the current crisis resembles. Foreign-policy experts rush to compare Libya to Bosnia, the Punic Wars, Iraq, Kosovo, Thermopylae, and so forth. Take, for example, the difficulties of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya as opposed to Iraq or Bosnia. Well, it might be noticed that the terrain, cultures, leaders, peoples, and most elements of these situations were quite different from one another. It's not just a matter of sending U.S. aircraft up here and there and expecting the same results. The no-fly zone the U.S. enforced over Kurdistan after the first Gulf war worked just fine. But the one declared for the Shiite southern part of Iraq didn't. That's mainly because the U.S. government said the no-fly dictum applied only to fixed-wing aircraft, not to helicopters. And what Saddam Hussein used to put down the revolt in the south was helicopters, tanks, and ground troops.

That's precisely what would happen in Libya if the no-fly zone pertained only to fixed-wing aircraft. Because Gaddafi's main power flows from helicopters, tanks and troops, no-fly by itself would have been of very limited value. If the goal is to save civilians, there is no choice other than hitting all military targets.

So now comes the ultimate hypocrisy—the one of intoning that a sin is so mortal and a threat so deadly that only somebody else can do the job. Remember the West's joy after the Arab League's blessing of a no-fly zone? Foreign policy experts reacted as if Arabs were putting aside their Arab-first cloak and actually joining the hated Westerners in humanitarian military action. In reality, however, they were just saying, "You do it." Thus, it is no surprise that those Arabs are nowhere to be found when it comes to translating their heroic rhetoric into action. So far, it appears that their contributions will be limited to Egypt providing some arms to the Libyan "freedom fighters," four Qatari jets flying over Libya (as fast as they can, I assume), some cash payments to the Western devils, and other unspecified considerations. Just in case the self-delusory Westerners didn't get the point, the Arab League head Amr Moussa set them straight on Sunday. He criticized the Western devils for killing Libyan civilians in no-fly zone operations. Apparently, the League thought that an effective no-fly zone was like flying kites—just a beautiful thing to watch with no one being injured. Westerners must have been confused and actually believed that the Arab League desired the no-fly operation to reduce Gaddafi's killing Libyan civilians. Apparently, only some Arabs are permitted to kill certain other Arabs. In which event, the Arabs should have gone and flown their own planes against Gaddafi's in the first place. Which is precisely what I advocated in the first place—and still do.

President Obama erred initially by saying that Gaddafi "must go." Maybe he meant of his own accord or by being overthrown by his own cohorts, but he didn't specify. Then, properly, he stiff-armed those demanding an immediate no-fly operation. Instead, and properly again, he waited upon Arab League and U.N. resolutions, and upon agreements from America's overeager French and British allies on their assuming major responsibility for military action over Libya in few days. Pray that he sticks to that course and puts America in a strictly supporting role. Pray he is not drawn deeper into the Libyan snake pit by events or the hypocritical oratory of world leaders and foreign policy experts.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: dario73 on March 22, 2011, 06:52:19 AM
It's pretty sad. I can't think of a single instance since Obama was elected that 240 has actually criticized his messiah without justifying his actions by comparing him to Bush or Palin.

"Of course I don't support Obama's decision but Bush did this, this, and this so it's OK."  ::)

That is why Democrats and the left can be diagnosed as having a mental disease.

To all you douchebags on the left, Democrats and idiots who voted for Obama:

You can not justify Obama by bringing up Bush, his father or Reagan. It is given that Republicans won't blink an eye in using the military. BUT, and stay with me here you stupid drones.  OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT. He was going to close GITMO. He was going to bring all the soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan. He wasn't going to be so quick to flex the military might of the USA and bring us into unnecessary military conflicts. The whole world was going to love us. HOPE AND CHANGE. Remember that? You morons voted for CHANGE. Key word here is CHANGE. And he ran on that and stated HE WOULD BE DIFFERENT. He hasn't been different. He is doing the same things Bush did. Gitmo is still open and will continue to be open for a long time. No end in sight for Iraq and Afghanistan. And now he has brought America into the Libyan civil war.  If Bush was a war criminal, so is Obama.  The joke was on you. You tried to avoid a "third Bush term" by not voting for McCain, but you got it anyway with the incompetent Obama.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 22, 2011, 07:02:41 AM
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:05:14 AM
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?

I voted for McCain for the following reasons: 

1.  Obama has no business at 1600 PA Ave. under any circumstances
2.  Supreme Court picks
3.  I liked and still like Palin. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 22, 2011, 07:07:19 AM
I now you hate Obama and im not a big fan either but he is doing his thing here.

We can agree or disagree but i have a lot more respect for his commitment now


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:08:49 AM
I now you hate Obama and im not a big fan either but he is doing his thing here.

We can agree or disagree but i have a lot more respect for his commitment now

 ::)  ::)

Yeah, ok - why are we not doing the same in Bahraine, Yemen, ivory Coast, the Congo, Somali, Darfur, etc? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 22, 2011, 07:15:19 AM
How the hell should i know??

You claimed Obama and Gaddafi were on the same page, Gaddafi calling Obama son etc..
And now you are complaining that he is attacking? Make up your mind


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: dario73 on March 22, 2011, 07:17:33 AM
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?

I voted to prevent a nightmare from taking over the oval office. Don't be upset that I saw what you or others were too dumb to see. That Obama is clueless.

My complaint is idiots defending Obama. The same idiots who condemned Bush. Somehow, Bush was wrong at everything he did. But, Obama doing the same things that Bush did is somehow correct and exempt from any criticism.

I want the left who so much ridiculed Bush, to step up and put Obama through the same ordeal.  The liberal media is no where to be found.  That is my complaint.

Should I draw you pictures in order for you to understand?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 22, 2011, 07:25:41 AM
"Somehow, Bush was wrong at everything he did. But, Obama doing the same things that Bush did is somehow correct and exempt from any criticism."
You nailed it here. Unfortunetly you are blinded in the same way these people are just the other way around.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:28:12 AM
Yeah, so lets keep repeating the same mistakes and failures just because its Obama and not bush, that makes it ok now. 

Unfucking real how blind and delusional you obama cultists are   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 22, 2011, 07:32:36 AM
People are blind on both sides that was my point


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 07:54:15 AM
It's not illegal, but it's goddam stupid.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 22, 2011, 08:51:59 AM
U.S. Bombs Libya, Helps... Jihadists?!

America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.

In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.

By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica. As you can see on the map above, Libya is a mashup of three historically distinct provinces. As recently as the 1940s, Cyrenaica was an independent emirate, with its capital in Benghazi.

The emnity between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania runs deep. The Emir of Cyrenaica awkwardly cobbled together modern Libya and ruled as its monarch. This is the same king that Qaddafi deposed in his coup of 1969. And the Qaddafi regime has seen the former king's homeland as a threat ever since, as this Wikileaked cable from our Tripoli embassy explains:

Eastern Libya had suffered ... from a lack of investment and government resources, part of a campaign by the al-Qadhafi regime to keep the area poor and, theoretically, less likely to develop as a viable alternative locus of power to Tripoli.

Another cable reports that the disrespect is mutual:

Residents of eastern Libya ... view the al-Qadhafa clan [Qaddafi's tribe] as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have "stolen" the right to rule in Libya.

That's the background. Flash forward to 2008: A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters.

The word "fighter" here is misleading. For the most part, Libyans didn't go to Iraq to fight; they went to blow themselves up — along with American G.I.'s. (Among those whose "work" was detailed in the al Qaeda records, 85 percent of the Libyans were listed as suicide bombers.) Overwhelmingly, these militants came "from cities in North‐East Libya, an area long known for Jihadi‐linked militancy."

A WikiLeaked cable from 2008 explained that Cyrenaicans were waging jihad against U.S. troops as "a last act of defiance against the Qadhafi regime." After the U.S. normalized relations with Qaddaffi in 2006, Cyrenacians believed they no longer had any shot at toppling him:

Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers.

The epicenter of Libyan jihadism is the city of Derna — the hometown of more than half of Libya's foreign fighters, according the West Point analysis. The city of 80,000 has a history of violent resistance to occupying powers — including Americans, who captured the city in the First Barbary War.

A surprisingly readable cable titled "Die Hard in Derna" makes clear that the city "takes great pride" in having sent so many of its sons to kill American soldiers in Iraq, quoting one resident as saying: "It's jihad — it's our duty, and you're talking about people who don't have much else to be proud of."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/u-s-bombs-libya-helps-jihadists-20110321


Even liberal Rolling Stone has admitted that we're aiding terrorists and jihadists.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
Wow BF.   Case freaking closed. 


I want just one brain dead lib to tell me that they are ok losing a relative for those scumbags.   



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 22, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
How the hell should i know??

You claimed Obama and Gaddafi were on the same page, Gaddafi calling Obama son etc..
And now you are complaining that he is attacking? Make up your mind

3333 has no mind


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 22, 2011, 08:55:25 AM
Wow BF.   Case freaking closed. 


I want just one brain dead lib to tell me that they are ok losing a relative for those scumbags.   



From 2006 to 2007, Libya sent more fighters to Iraq than any other country besides Saudi Arabia. And the eastern town of Darnah (population: 80,000) sent more fighters to Iraq than any other city or town on the planet (#2 was Riyadh, with a population of 4 million).

We're working alongside terrorists, jihadists and other vehemently anti-American peoples.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 22, 2011, 08:57:47 AM
From 2006 to 2007, Libya sent more fighters to Iraq than any other country besides Saudi Arabia. And the eastern town of Darnah (population: 80,000) sent more fighters to Iraq than any other city or town on the planet (#2 was Riyadh, with a population of 4 million).

We're working alongside terrorists, jihadists and other vehemently anti-American peoples.
]

I saw that today.  That's HUGE.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 08:58:28 AM
3333 has no mind

Ha ha ha ha-  bring it on any time you douche. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 08:58:57 AM
of course its an illegal war.

is anyone really arguing that?


No it isn't. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 22, 2011, 09:03:38 AM
No it isn't. 

wait, youre defnding obama here?

again?

after you defended his birth certificate too?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 09:06:16 AM
wait, youre defnding obama here?

again?

after you defended his birth certificate too?

 ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 09:40:21 AM
wait, youre defnding obama here?

again?

after you defended his birth certificate too?

I'm not defending anything.  We shouldn't have gone in.  But going in wasn't illegal.  Might be a little difficult for a CT nut to grasp that distinction. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 09:42:26 AM
I'm not defending anything.  We shouldn't have gone in.  But going in wasn't illegal.  Might be a little difficult for a CT nut to grasp that distinction. 

I still want his ass impeached asap.   And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 09:47:50 AM
Six Libyan villagers shot by US team rescuing pilot.
channel 4 ^




Channel 4 News International Editor, Lindsey Hilsum, says that the villagers were shot when a US helicopter picked up the pilot who had ejected from the F-15E Eagle plane after it experienced a mechanical failure.

The US aircraft crashed on Monday night and was found in a field outside Benghazi and landed in rebel-held territory.

The local Libyans who were injured in the rescue mission are currently in hospital. They are the first confirmed casualities of allied operations, almost four days after operations began. At the time of writing, no one had died as a result of the gunfire.

Lindsey Hilsum has been in the hospital where some of the injured were taken. She has spoken to the father of a young boy who expects to have his leg amputated due to a bullet wound.

Gauging the reaction of locals in the area, she said: "the local Libyans do not seem resentful, they still want the coalition forces to keep operating."

Both crew members ejected and have now been flown out of Libya by US personel, according to a US military spokesman.

He said the crash was "not due to enemy or hostile actions."

The pilot and a weapons officer were aboard the fighter jet, having set off from from Aviano Air Base in Italy. On experiencing the mechanical difficulties, both pilots ejected safely, but suffered minor injuries.

The pilot was rescued by the US helicopter soon after crash landing and opposition rebels recovered the weapons officer, taking "took good care of him" before coalition forces picked him up some time later.


(Excerpt) Read more at channel4.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 09:48:05 AM
I still want his ass impeached asap.   And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.   

He's not getting impeached and I don't want my tax dollars wasted on another one of those fiascos.  I just want him slowed down by the House and out in 2012.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 22, 2011, 10:14:26 AM
I still want his ass impeached asap.   And not once, I want obama impeached daily for so long as we can come up with valid reasons which by my count is about 5,986 at this point.   

did you say the same with bush?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 10:20:21 AM
did you say the same with bush?

I loathed Bush for many reasons and fet that he was disgusting for his abdication on immigration, spending, dubai ports, and a few other isues. 

He was a NWO stooge for his trying to get us signed up for a bunch of shitty trade deals, and at the end gave away the store to the banking cartel.  He dithered on the Iraq war and let that go on way too long and let the contractors rape the taxpayer.

That being said, what Bush did was nothing in scale compared to what we see now.   

   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 11:27:01 AM
Obama Mission du Jour in Libya: “Installing a democratic system”
Hotair ^ | March 22,2011 | Ed Morrissey




Barack Obama has launched an American military operation in Libya, but has had trouble deciding on exactly why. Several weeks ago, Obama called for Moammar Gaddafi’s ouster. When he launched military operations against Gaddafi’s regime, however, Obama insisted that he would only act within the UN mandate of protecting civilians. Yesterday, Obama tried to claim both missions simultaneously by saying that our military wouldn’t try to push Gaddafi out, but that we’d still push him out some other way. What that was, Obama didn’t really know.

According to a transcript of a call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, we’re back to “regime change” — and a familiar goal:

The White House suggested 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.

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for clarification.

In their defense, they seem to be more confused than anyone at the moment about what Obama really wants. We can’t ask Obama, since he’s touring South America while everyone else puzzles over his intentions for the military intervention in Libya. Similarly, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton are both out of the country as well, leaving Joe Biden running the show … presumably.

The term “installing” sounds more proactive than just “regime change,” which could be just limited to taking out Gaddafi and key members of his regime. Of course, the US hadn’t even gone that far of late in describing their goals in this new war, claiming not to be targeting Gaddafi or his command and control while someone rains bombs down on both. But “installing a democratic system” sounds an awful lot like the nation-building on which both Obama and Hillary heaped criticism while running for President in 2007-8.

Seems like everyone’s a neocon these days. Here’s the big question: How does one “install” a “democratic system” from 30,000 feet? Congress might like to hear that answer as well.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 11:38:31 AM
Great more "nation building" ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 11:40:49 AM
White House: Helping install 'a democratic system' is goal in Libya
By Sam Youngman - 03/22/11 10:23 AM ET

 
The White House suggested 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.

In an e-mail, White House press secretary Jay Carney said there is no change in the U.S. military mission, which he wrote was clearly focused on protecting civilians. He also noted Obama's remark Monday that Gadhafi is no longer fit to lead.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere where Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.

Obama has struggled to reconcile the stated U.S. policy of wanting Gadhafi out of power with the U.N. mission of protecting the Libyan people.

At a press conference Monday in Chile, Obama said it is "very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies."

But the president faces an increasingly hostile backlash from Capitol Hill about the specific definition of the mission.

This story was updated at 2:43 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Great more "nation building" ::)

Been doing a lot of that lately.   :-\


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 12:21:43 PM
Been doing a lot of that lately.   :-\

WRONG BB!   

Obama has been doing a lot of nation COLLAPSNG & DESTROYING lately - namely - our own. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 12:42:26 PM
Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy:U.S. Military Docum
 

Well known to the United States policymakers in Obama White House and Clinton State Department along with the National Security Council but not widely known to American mainstream media, the U.S. West Point Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center document reveals that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq’s Islamic militancy on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The analysis of the Combating Terrorism Center of West Point was based on the records captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border.

The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million).

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebe... 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 12:48:19 PM
It's not illegal, but it's goddam stupid.

How is this not "illegal"?  Did Gadaffi pose an imminent threat to our national security? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 12:53:31 PM
How is this not "illegal"?  Did Gadaffi pose an imminent threat to our national security?  

It's not illegal because as commander and chief of the armed forces, The President has the power to order these strikes.

That's pretty simple... Was Vietnam illegal? It certainly wasn't a war authorized by congress.


If an imminent threat is a requirement for a legal war, then everyone in Congress in 2003 should be tried for an illegal war for voting to go to war in Iraq.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:01:10 PM
It's not illegal because as commander and chief of the armed forces, The President has the power to order these strikes.

That's pretty simple... Was Vietnam illegal? It certainly wasn't a war authorized by congress.


If an imminent threat is a requirement for a legal war, then everyone in Congress in 2003 should be tried for an illegal war for voting to go to war in Iraq.

In 2003 they argued imminent threat and got Powell to put his credibility on the line.  As Commander, President has power to act responsively/offensively if an imminent threat.  Or so I understand.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:04:30 PM
In 2003 they argued imminent threat and got Powell to put his credibility on the line.  As Commander, President has power to act responsively/offensively if an imminent threat.  Or so I understand.

Vietnam was an imminent threat?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:06:04 PM
Vietnam was an imminent threat?

Two wrongs dont make a right.   I thought obama was supposed to the smartest potus ever to sit in office and realize the folly of past mistakes.   



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:07:01 PM
Two wrongs dont make a right.   I thought obama was supposed to the smartest potus ever to sit in office and realize the folly of past mistakes.   



Woh woh... i'm not talking right or wrong.

I know you've seen my posts talking about it being wrong... but that doesn't make it illegal.

It's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend, but it ain't illegal.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 01:07:31 PM
Vietnam was an imminent threat?

At the time any spread of communism was thought to be an imminent threat to the US, the point is the original intent in the constitution and what the CIC clause has become are 2 completely different things. I would think all would agree that the POTUS shouldn't be able to just attack whom ever he feels like whenever he feels like.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:09:45 PM
Woh woh... i'm not talking right or wrong.

I know you've seen my posts talking about it being wrong... but that doesn't make it illegal.

It's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend, but it ain't illegal.

It's illegal if it isn't authorized by the constitution.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:10:20 PM
At the time any spread of communism was thought to be an imminent threat to the US, the point is the original intent in the constitution and what the CIC clause has become are 2 completely different things. I would think all would agree that the POTUS shouldn't be able to just attack whom ever he feels like whenever he feels like.

Yes, I do agree... but Presidents do it anyway.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:14:33 PM
No it isn't. 

Why not?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:17:04 PM
It's illegal if it isn't authorized by the constitution.

That's not true... If it's not specifically in the constitution it doesn't make it necessarily denied.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (as others have mentioned) seems to address this.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 01:17:09 PM
Yes, I do agree... but Presidents do it anyway.



That is the problem, congress doesn't seem to want to say hold on, you can't do that. They just throw out a few sound bites and then do nothing else. Someone posted the notification to the congress from Obama. It appears that he is trying to say that a civil war in Libya is going to create a humanitarian crisis through out the ME that will affect US assets. So why wasn't the same true for Egypt? Bharain? ...........  There is more at play here, my guess is we won't know for 20 years exactly what it is.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 01:19:06 PM
Why not?

Because the president, as commander in chief, has the authority to order military action without a declaration of war, which has happened in every conflict since WWII.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
That's not true... If it's not specifically in the constitution it doesn't make it necessarily denied.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (as others have mentioned) seems to address this.

The constitution specifically limits his power on that point.  Saw some news story with "humanitarian intervention doctrine" which is probably how they're going to justify this.  Whatever. onward to the abyss.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 01:21:03 PM
The constitution specifically limits his power on that point.  Saw some news story with "humanitarian intervention doctrine" which is probably how they're going to justify this.  Whatever. onward to the abyss.

I think it's horrendous. We should not be doing this as a country.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:21:26 PM
Obama is now adopting the national building agenda for this mess.  


Hope & Change!  

Can't wait for the 2012 race and the rationale bama nuts give to get him re-elected.  


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 01:21:40 PM
That's not true... If it's not specifically in the constitution it doesn't make it necessarily denied.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (as others have mentioned) seems to address this.

Congress has to declare war, the POTUS is the CIC once war has been declared. The only reason the war powers act exists is because POTUS's sending US personal into "wars" without them ever being declared by congress, calling them "police actions" or "peace keeping missions"


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:25:25 PM
Incredibly short sighted.  What does he think will happen when rebels in S. Arabia take encouragement from this?  Goodbye, economic recovery. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:26:42 PM
Incredibly short sighted.  What does he think will happen when rebels in S. Arabia take encouragement from this?  Goodbye, economic recovery. 

? ? ? ?   

Economic recovery? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:28:17 PM
The Rise of Samantha Power and the risks for the American- Israel relationship
American Thinker ^ | March 20, 2011






As stories leak out regarding who was responsible for Barack Obama's sudden pivot from passivity regarding Libya towards military engagement (albeit with England and France being in the lead) one name has emerged as playing a key role in persuading him to push the button: Samantha Power. Her influence might cause qualms among supporters of the American-Israel relationship...Power has been critical of the strength of this friendship and alliance. This concern should be now be heightened. Not only has she emerged as a key player in foreign policy but the rationale that was used to justify American actions towards Libya can be used by other nations - if not the United States - to justify more active involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Power was Barack Obama's most influential foreign policy adviser during the campaign; they go back years...Any influence she has would not be good for the American-Israel relationship-for reasons outlined here and here (where she said this regarding problems Barack Obama had during the campaign; "So much of it is about: Is he good for the Jews?").

Power may also have played a role in the granting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a person with a checkered record regarding actions towards Israel.

She now serves on the National Security Council. Foreign-policy making in this administration has been opaque at best. But one dynamic that has been now made clear is that Power has emerged as a key player....


According to Rogin, the governing doctrine that helped Obama to make his decision to act was not an appeal to the national interest, but rather to a recent concept promulgated at the United Nations called "responsibility to protect," or R2P. R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians....

So it was not an appeal to our national interest that led President Obama to act but rather a new concept circulating in international policy circles - and one actively promoted by Power - that prompted his shift.

(By the way, the fact that Power played a key role in persuading Barack Obama to apply military force to protect civilians in Libya is akin to the same advice she counseled regarding Israel: Power also advocated that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians)....



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:29:52 PM
Oh brother.  Not bad looking but a total hippy chick.  I thought she got canned from whatever admin position she had for calling Hillary a monster or something.


The Rise of Samantha Power and the risks for the American- Israel relationship
American Thinker ^ | March 20, 2011






As stories leak out regarding who was responsible for Barack Obama's sudden pivot from passivity regarding Libya towards military engagement (albeit with England and France being in the lead) one name has emerged as playing a key role in persuading him to push the button: Samantha Power. Her influence might cause qualms among supporters of the American-Israel relationship...Power has been critical of the strength of this friendship and alliance. This concern should be now be heightened. Not only has she emerged as a key player in foreign policy but the rationale that was used to justify American actions towards Libya can be used by other nations - if not the United States - to justify more active involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Power was Barack Obama's most influential foreign policy adviser during the campaign; they go back years...Any influence she has would not be good for the American-Israel relationship-for reasons outlined here and here (where she said this regarding problems Barack Obama had during the campaign; "So much of it is about: Is he good for the Jews?").

Power may also have played a role in the granting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a person with a checkered record regarding actions towards Israel.

She now serves on the National Security Council. Foreign-policy making in this administration has been opaque at best. But one dynamic that has been now made clear is that Power has emerged as a key player....


According to Rogin, the governing doctrine that helped Obama to make his decision to act was not an appeal to the national interest, but rather to a recent concept promulgated at the United Nations called "responsibility to protect," or R2P. R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians....

So it was not an appeal to our national interest that led President Obama to act but rather a new concept circulating in international policy circles - and one actively promoted by Power - that prompted his shift.

(By the way, the fact that Power played a key role in persuading Barack Obama to apply military force to protect civilians in Libya is akin to the same advice she counseled regarding Israel: Power also advocated that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians)....




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:32:55 PM
Yup- she, Hillary, and Susan Rice went to the WH the night before bama left for his vacation and screamed at Obama until he gave the ok on this. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 22, 2011, 01:34:15 PM
Yup- she, Hillary, and Susan Rice went to the WH the night before bama left for his vacation and screamed at Obama until he gave the ok on this. 

I thought she and Hillary hated each other though.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 01:36:53 PM
I thought she and Hillary hated each other though.

Maybe so, but the story emerging from the WH and how this went down was that those three ganged up on obama and agreed to military intervenion at their collective onslaught for this. 

Apparently DOD, NSC Advisor, and others were against this.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 02:09:11 PM
The Bush Smear - Obama makes a revealing misstatement in Chile
humanevents.com ^ | 03/22/2011 | John Hayward





Speaking in Chile to defend his decision to launch Operation Odyssey Dawn, President Obama couldn’t resist taking a swipe at George Bush, in a clumsy attempt to make himself look superior.

As reported by Fox News, the President declared: "In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden."

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya. They even put together a list.

The thinking behind this latest Bush smear is extremely troubling. You might view Obama reflexively blaming or denigrating Bush as a dog-bites-man story, but consider the context.

Odyssey Dawn is only four days old. Unlike Bush, Obama made no effort to prepare the American people for the operation, and now that the initial surprise has worn off, significant questions are being asked about his authority to launch these attacks. The concept of taking executive action to counter an imminent threat was arguable in Bush’s case – and people have been arguing about it for years – but utterly risible with respect to Libya. Indeed, the Administration hasn’t even tried to advance such an argument.

Serious questions are being asked about the long-term objectives of Odyssey Dawn, how much of it we’ll be expected to pay for, and whether promises to avoid the commitment of ground forces will be kept.

Against this backdrop, Obama decided to throw out an offhanded smear of his predecessor… a slander so transparently false that it was debunked within minutes?

That’s a disconnect with reality so profound that it verges on mental illness. It also highlights just how half-hearted and poorly thought out this decision was. The President has a massive staff and an enormous political team, but apparently no effort was made to put together a comprehensive response to critics of Libya policy. Nobody gamed out the scenario, considered the most predictable developments, and developed comprehensive, well-researched answers to likely challenges. Instead, it was Improv Night in front of a brick wall in Chile, and the President decided to haul out the old joke about Bush the Unitary Executive.

The President’s comment demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge about the Iraq war. He ran as an outspoken opponent of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay… but has continued all three, and now added Libya. It would seem his campaign criticism was not informed and intelligent opposition, but rather a general conviction that George Bush is the devil, and anything he did should be mindlessly denounced from every possible angle.

Congress is understandably upset that they weren’t even formally notified about Odyssey Dawn until several days of bombing had already gone by. No rational person could have thought they would be mollified by boasting of how many international allies were consulted, especially since this is a coalition Obama was dragged into. This is not the rhetoric of a President who has been carefully weighing policy options since the beginning of the Libyan uprising. It’s the irritable snarl of a man who sent American troops into combat to get everyone off his back, so he could get back to doing what he enjoys.


________________________ ________________________ ______--


I'm serious -    FUCK YOU whoever still supports this lunatic.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: headhuntersix on March 22, 2011, 02:24:41 PM
I guess the Brits are sending 600 royal marines into the Med. You don't need 600 dudes for SAR. No idea what they're going to do there. Incidently the entire 82nd is home for the first time since 2001. I'm in a unit now that supports them so if they go...I'll be going at some point as well. I'll let you all know.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 22, 2011, 02:27:02 PM
I guess the Brits are sending 600 royal marines into the Med. You don't need 600 dudes for SAR. No idea what they're going to do there. Incidently the entire 82nd is home for the first time since 2001. I'm in a unit now that supports them so if they go...I'll be going at some point as well. I'll let you all know.

I certainly hope not... You deserve to stay home for awhile.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 02:31:38 PM
We all know the deal on this.  Lies and more lies.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 02:37:20 PM
I really hope this piece of trash is impeached and jailed for life.  What a disgraceful human being he is still blaming bush and making apologies overseas for our country.


Whoever still supports this admn at this point is as bad as he is imho and just as traitorous and treasonous. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: headhuntersix on March 22, 2011, 02:41:50 PM
Yeah I'd really like to.....so glad the friggen NFL decides to strike on the year I'm home...u can all blame me...bad karma. I don't think we're going to send in ground troops. It appears from the news that the coalition is having all kinds of issues. This again proves that NATO is worthless without us. Barry decided to allow other people to step up....good in theory but doesn't work. More bs we can't afford.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 22, 2011, 02:50:40 PM
I really hope this piece of trash is impeached and jailed for life.  What a disgraceful human being he is still blaming bush and making apologies overseas for our country.


Whoever still supports this admn at this point is as bad as he is imho and just as traitorous and treasonous. 

crazy talk  :D :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 22, 2011, 03:10:17 PM
Because the president, as commander in chief, has the authority to order military action without a declaration of war, which has happened in every conflict since WWII.

holy libspeak, batman.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 04:12:37 PM
Nice that obama found a way to trash bush, the nation, and lie agin while in chile.  What a disgrace.  A friggin real disgrace. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 04:13:58 PM
holy libspeak, batman.

lol


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
lol

Here is an interesting read on Presidential War Powers and how the whole thing has been perverted over the years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Here is an interesting read on Presidential War Powers and how the whole thing has been perverted over the years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html)

It is an interesting read.  He makes some good points, but sounds like he has an agenda, referring to "neoconservatives" and accusing people who disagree with him of being dishonest.  I'm sure there is opposing commentary out there.  Many of his opinions are not sourced. 

I think we could have a problem with this current action if Congress fails to pass a resolution approving of the air strikes.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 04:39:52 PM
It is an interesting read.  He makes some good points, but sounds like he has an agenda, referring to "neoconservatives" and accusing people who disagree with him of being dishonest.  I'm sure there is opposing commentary out there.  Many of his opinions are not sourced. 

I think we could have a problem with this current action if Congress fails to pass a resolution approving of the air strikes.

There is a reason the framers divided the powers, and I think this kida crap with sending troops in is a prime example


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
There is a reason the framers divided the powers, and I think this kida crap with sending troops in is a prime example

Presidents have been making an end run around the Congressional declaration of war, but the major military actions have all been ratified by Congress, so kind of a moot point.  Same thing will probably happen with Libya.  I doubt a majority of Congressmen will have the stones to vote down a resolution. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
GLOBAL JIHAD

Look who's in line to replace Gadhafi
'At the right time they will make the move, and we will see Shariah'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 22, 2011
8:20 pm Eastern


By Michael Carl
© 2011 WorldNetDaily



Anjem Choudary




 British cleric Anjem Choudary says al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood have assets on the ground in Libya and are ready to take control if Moammar Gadhafi is removed from power.

The top Muslim cleric accuses the U. S. and French-led coalition trying to topple Gadhafi of working to install a puppet regime, but he says there are al-Qaida operatives in Libya who will stop the West from installing a friendly government.

"Al-Qaida has their own agents and their own people in the region who are propagating their own Islamic ideas and their agenda. At the right time they will make the move, and we will see the emergence of Islam and Shariah in that particular region," Choudary said.

Read "The Stoning of Soraya M." – the true story that inspired the movie

"The power vacuum is very useful for anyone who has an agenda and an alternative system to put in its place," he said.



"Al-Qaida is in fact a philosophy and an idea which is franchised now all around the world. You don't necessarily have to be a member of al-Qaida. If you believe in the Shariah and if you believe in the concept of jihad, and you want Islam to be implemented, then you are adhering to the same ideas as the people of al-Qaida," said Choudary.

(Story continues below)

     


"This is widespread throughout Africa and the more these people resist against oppression, the more they see the Americans, the British and the French bombing Muslims, the more they will be drawn towards Shariah as an alternative," Choudary said.

Florida Security Council President Tom Trento agrees.

"He is telling the truth, because North Africa from Cairo going West has deep penetration by the Muslim Brotherhood. We also know that Gadhafi is hated by and hates the Brotherhood and al-Qaida," Trento said.

"We also know that al-Qaida has their heart set on controlling petroleum. Libya is the No. 4 producer. There is no bigger prize in northern Africa than Libya right now," Trento said.

He said Choudary is in a position to know if the Brotherhood or al-Qaida is poised to move if Gadhafi is removed.

"Choudary has deep analytical connections to a variety of organizations. He is the sort of philosophical mind for al-Qaida. He is a confidante of Osama bin Laden," Trento said.

Trento is certain that these connections give Choudary inside information on whether al-Qaida is able to make such a power play if Gadhafi is gone from Libya.

Choudary's comments came after he and other leaders of the outlawed Al-Muhajiroun organization gathered in front of the prime minister's residence at No. 10 Downing Street in London to protest the British and American actions in Libya.

The press release for the protest said the operation is the latest example of American and British opposition to Islam.

"Under the guise of helping the people, once again we see the full might of the U.S. and its stooges, i.e. the British and French, murdering Muslim men, women and children in cold blood," Choudary's statement read.

"Yet again we see the fig-leaf excuse of defending democracy and freedom being used to justify atrocities against Muslims. The reality is that the Americans and the institutions that they control, such as the U.N. and Security Council, will do everything in their power to ensure that the Muslims do not rise to implement the Shariah and threaten their military and economic interests in the region," Choudary's statement said.

Choudary's statement also claims that the military action is to cover up how the U. S. has benefitted from Gadhafi's rule over the years.

"The clear truth is that the U.S., British and French have benefited from their puppets like Gadhafi and Mubarak for decades, they have been complicit in their torture of Muslims, they have even rendered Muslims to such countries to be tortured, all in order to stop the spread of Islam and for Muslims not to rise to establish the Islamic state which would spell the end of their hegemony," Choudary's statement asserted.

Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer says that Choudary's accusation that the U. S. and French-led coalition plans to install a puppet regime is giving the coalition way too much credit.

"Anjem Choudary is being a bit fanciful in suggesting the coalition that is attacking Gadhafi now from the West is going to install some Western puppet government," Spencer analyzed.

"The glaring omission in this whole enterprise has been any discussion or any hint that anyone in this coalition has any idea of what's going to follow Gadhafi at all or has made any provision for a post-Gadhafi Libya," he observed.



But Spencer supports the analysts who say that radical Islam groups are on the ground in Libya and are prepared to take control.

"That's the big problem with it, that the largest organized forces in Libya opposing Gadhafi are Islamic supremacist, pro-Shariah groups, including al-Qaida. So they're most likely to be the beneficiaries of this intervention," Spencer said.

Spencer added that because al-Qaida is in Libya, even if the Western coalition removes Gadhafi, the civil war will continue until the jihadi forces prevail.

Trento added that the U.S. is making it safe for jihad in North Africa and that the administration is making a tactical error by supporting the removal of Gadhafi.

"I regard very highly Ambassador John Bolton, but this morning he made the statement that, 'Whoever comes next,' with the assumption that, 'I don't know who's coming next,' can't be as bad and as anti-American as Moammar Gadhafi," he said.

"I thought, 'How can you base national policy in the hope that the next isn't as bad as the man in power and a man that we can manage to some extent?'" Trento added.



Choudary seems to echo that thought, because he says that the West's intervention to topple Gadhafi wasn't necessary. He says that Gadhafi's days were already numbered.

"The Muslims in Libya are rising against oppression and calling for Islam and the Shariah. This is evident in the chants of the people. Many people believe that they're fighting in jihad against Gadhafi and his own regime," Choudary claimed.

"The removal of Gadhafi was something that was going to be done anyway by the people in Libya. The removal of all dictators is on our agenda. We do not need the Americans, the British and French to come in and bomb Baghdad, and bomb Kabul and bomb Tripoli in order to remove leaders," Choudary added.

Choudary and his supporters took their cause to the British prime minister's residence. The demonstration followed what Choudary called an urgent weekend conference on the status of the worldwide Muslim Ummah.

The Paltalk-hosted Web conference was a forum for some of the British Commonwealth's most radical clerics to take shots at British and American foreign policy and to talk up Islamic law, or Shariah.

Choudary associate Abu Izzadeen was at the protest and a speaker at the conference, and he says that both events are commentaries on the anti-Islamic West.

"It was a commentary on the rise of Muslims around the world and the awareness of the need for change. That change is not hearkening back to the same promises we've had broken for many years of freedom and democracy and liberty, etc.," Izzadeen asserted.



"Those slogans only brought to us humiliation and subjugation. What we need is an independent system where we are free from Western domination. It's not about changing a particular person or an individual. It's about changing a whole system," he said.

Choudary's openness about his intentions has created controversy during his American media appearances. MSNBC TV host Elliot Spitzer has said Choudary should be in prison, and Fox News Channel and nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity has called Choudary evil.

Spencer said that Choudary attracts attention because he's open about his intentions.

"He attracts so much attention among such people (the pro-freedom and anti-Shariah groups) because he is so forthright about these objectives of Islamic jihad where most Islamic spokesmen dissemble about them. He is easy to point to and say, 'This is the real agenda here,' because he's the one who's being honest about it," Spencer explained.

Spencer adds that Choudary is this open about his intentions because the British imam knows most Americans don't take him seriously.



"He knows that most Americans don't care, won't pay attention and won't take him seriously and don't realize that what he's expressing is the broad mainstream of Islamic teaching and not some radical offshoot like the KKK or something like that," Spencer said.

"He knows that most Americans won't realize the implications of what they're hearing and he feels free to say what he wishes."



Read more: Look who's in line to replace Gadhafi http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278105#ixzz1HO5u7ACO



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 06:57:41 PM
Germans Pull Forces Out of NATO as Libyan Coalition Falls Apart
dailymail.com ^ | Last updated at 11:42 PM on 22nd March 2011 | By Daily Mail Reporter




Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:02:22 PM
Cost of Libyan war could wipe out GOP budget cuts
American Thinker ^ | 3/22/11 | Rick Moran



This shows how pitifully small the GOP's cuts in the $1.5 trillion deficit are. The Hill:

U.S. military operations in Libya could wipe out a significant chunk of the budget cuts won by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, defense analysts say.

GOP leaders have trumpeted enacted spending reductions that amount to more than $285 million per day since the beginning of March. But defense analysts say the Pentagon could be burning through more than $100 million per day in Libya, putting those budget savings at risk.

In separate briefings on Monday, the Defense Department and the White House said they do not yet have a projected price tag for the military action that began on Saturday. Defense officials said they are still "collecting" and analyzing early costs.

With Congress determined to rein in federal spending, the cost of the U.S. intervention is sure to become a top concern on Capitol Hill.

Dick Lugar has already raised the issue as part of the reason he is opposing the intervention in Libya. You can't fight a war on the cheap - not when the weapons systems and deployments are so expensive. Might this spur Republicans to deepen the cuts and try to make a real dent in the deficit?

Don't hold your breath...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 22, 2011, 07:13:16 PM
Gaddafi isn't going anywhere, and the US is going to be left holding bag as the coalition dissolves, fucking brilliant


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:14:46 PM
Gaddafi isn't going anywhere, and the US is going to be left holding bag as the coalition dissolves, fucking brilliant

check the other thread.  exactly right kazan. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:23:43 PM
Obama Tries to Patch Rift on Libya Role as Strikes Go On
 Source: The NY Times



WASHINGTON — Explosions rocked Tripoli on Tuesday in a fourth day of airstrikes, but forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi showed no signs of ending their sieges of rebel-held cities, as the Security Council has demanded, while President Obama spoke on Tuesday with the French and British leaders in an effort to defuse a disagreement among the allies over how to manage the military action against Libya.

...

Divisions persisted among the allies on Tuesday over how the campaign should continue and under whose command, though the NATO countries seemed to be making progress on an arrangement that would retain a substantial role for NATO while addressing French concerns about putting the military alliance fully in charge.

“What we’re saying right now is that NATO has a key role to play here,” Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Speaking to reporters in San Salvador on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said “I have absolutely no doubt” that the allies will agree on a plan to transfer control from the United States to the international coalition.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23libya....
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 22, 2011, 07:30:23 PM
Obama to Congress: What I Decided in Libya is Constitutional, Even Though I Said it Wasn't
Pundit Press ^ | 3/22/11 | Aurelius


Rather than speak to the American people or Congress directly on his decision to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, President Obama sent a letter to Congress explaining his actions. Here are the choicest quotes from the letter. Oh, and remember, President Obama was a Constitutional "Scholar" (emphasis mine):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya...

Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

You know, I could have sworn that Obama said that George W. Bush couldn't attack Iraq, even though Congress approved use of force. Oh wait, here's his quote from 2007:

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.

Sigh. What a hypocrite.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: MM2K on March 23, 2011, 12:01:01 AM
Now correct me if Im wrong, becuase I havenet been following this thing very closely. From what I understand, if we had done this no fly zone a couple of weeks ago, chances are the rebels would have won, but now since we dithered, there is a very low chance of beating Ghadaffi now. If this is correct that does not bode well for OBama at all. It is basically the worst of both decisions - which are to act and not to act.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 02:56:09 AM
video is unreal.  people shooting and beating the shit out of one another.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 03:36:39 AM
This whole shit show is already turning into another WTF moment for obama, like millions others.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 04:04:52 AM
Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya
WCTI ABC ^


http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html


________________________ __________________


We've seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

"In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces," said Captain Timothy Patrick, a marine with the 26th MEU.

A press release from the 26th MEU reads, in part:

"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."

Patrick says that marines from the 26th MEU are coming on the end of their deployment. They will be replaced with marines from the 22nd MEU.


(Excerpt) Read more at wcti12.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 04:09:02 AM
Fighting words between European allies overshadow Libyan mission

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/03/22/libya.nato.squabbling




Gioia Del Colle, Italy (CNN) -- Even as British RAF Typhoons took to the skies from this southern Italian air base, there was mounting tension between allies about who should command the mission to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya.

After heated exchanges between NATO ambassadors in Brussels, the alliance announced Tuesday an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. But it went no further on deciding if or when NATO would take command of the mission already under way, in which several allies are participating.

In a statement, NATO only said that it had plans on the table to enforce the no-fly zone "if needed."

The backdrop was a simmering feud between France and Italy that turned more cynical by the hour. Italy is demanding that NATO take a lead role in the military and political decision-making during the remainder of the Libyan mission.

But resistance within the alliance mounted even as the United States expressed its desire to take a back seat in the operation and hand over any command role to European allies. France seemed most reluctant to submit to NATO command, but Germany and Turkey also voiced objections.

These countries also argue that Arab League nations would be shut out of any decision-making if NATO took control.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he continues to believe it was right not to participate in the United Nations-sanctioned mission. He noted that Germany is not alone in its skeptical view of military action, pointing to the fact that other European nations are not taking part either.

Westerwelle also refused to comment on whether NATO should take a leading role in enforcing U.N. resolution 1973.

"That is for the coalition of the willing to debate," Westerwelle said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told French media that NATO would play a role in the mission in coming days but that France, Britain and a council of other coalition partners would make political decisions. One NATO official described this to CNN as putting the alliance's assets at the disposal of the coalition, but NATO would have no formal political role.

The squabbling continued as Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini again threatened to take back complete control of Italian airbases if NATO did not take the reins of the mission.

"Who, if not NATO, can take on this task?" said Frattini in comments to Italian media.

Some Italian politicians sought to settle old colonial scores by cynically noting that if France was allowed to lead this mission, it would get all the Libyan oil contracts and Italy would get all the Libyan refugees.

On a busy day at the Gioia Del Colle Air Base in southern Italy, RAF Typhoons executed a number of sorties to enforce the no-fly zone in Libya.

"The Italian support is crucial," said Royal Air Force Commander, Group Captain Sammy Sampson, but added that his fighters could operate from other locations. "It's a decision for our headquarters and our political masters."

Discussions between NATO allies will continue this week as the alliance continues to disagree over the parameters and scope of the U.N. resolution that authorized all means necessary to protect civilians in Libya, as well as imposing a no-fly zone over the country.

As well as disagreeing over whether Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is a legitimate target, there is the question of whether Libya will split along tribal lines or whether a united Libya is even a possibility. There is no appetite among coalition allies to get involved in a tribal grudge match or civil war.

Turkey, also a NATO member, also voiced its opposition to a political role for the alliance and has forcefully suggested that the mission so far has already gone beyond the intention of the U.N. resolution to protect civilians. However, one NATO source told CNN that they did not see Turkey's objections so far as a major stumbling block to a further role for NATO.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 04:14:14 AM
U.S. Role in Libya Already Costs Hundreds of Millions (With no money to pay for it)
Fox News ^ | 3/23/2011 | fox news




The cost of the American and European assault on Libya already easily tops hundreds of millions of dollars, and has the potential to rise significantly if the operation drags on for weeks or months.

Coalition efforts to undermine Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses and save the rebels from defeat have lasted for four nights already. If the U.S. role continues to be limited, with the Pentagon using its existing budget to cover the expense, the price tag on involvement will only rise moderately.

As of Tuesday, a U.S. defense official told Fox News the U.S. has fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libyan territory, with 24 missiles being fired overnight Monday into Tuesday. Each missile is priced at $1 million to $1.5 million apiece and dispatched B-2 stealth bombers -- round-trip from Missouri -- to drop 2,000-pound bombs on Libyan sites.

That’s a total flying time of 25 hours, with the operating cost for one hour priced at least $10,000.

Yet those numbers only provide part of the costs. The B-2 bombers require expensive fuel -- and rely on air tankers to refuel in flight -- and probably needed parts replaced upon their return to Whiteman Air Force Base. The pilots most certainly will get combat pay.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 05:03:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 05:19:05 AM
If you were President, what would you do 3333


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 23, 2011, 05:20:46 AM
Obama observe the now 37 year old War Powers Act... which lets a POTUS act unilaterally in a fast changing situation such as this, but states that s/he has to get Congressional authorization within 60 days, extendable to 90 if circumstances require it:

[SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.]



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 05:21:29 AM
If you were President, what would you do 3333

Pick my NCAA brackets, go on world tours, scarf down kob beef, champaign, lobster tails, have nightly parties at the WH, break the national bank, pass all sorts of WTF laws, ignore the economy, appoint all sorts of communist rabble to high level appointments, etc.    


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 05:23:03 AM
Pick my NCAA brackets, go on world tours, scarf down kob beef, champaign, lobster tails, have nightly parties at the WH, break the national bank, pass all sorts of WTF laws, ignore the economy, appoint all sorts of communist rabble to high level appointments, etc.    

this is why a serious conversation is impossible with you.. but it does speak to another point with you...but im not trying to beat a dead horse..


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Jadeveon Clowney on March 23, 2011, 05:38:52 AM
this is why a serious conversation is impossible with you.. but it does speak to another point with you...but im not trying to beat a dead horse..

If I was president I sure as hell wouldn't go on a wild goose chase in the Middle East.  Plenty of problems at home to focus on. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 23, 2011, 05:41:05 AM
 Again


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 05:41:31 AM
We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 05:46:54 AM
We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.


ok.. ill just assume all this conversation from the right went on with Bush Sr. ODS. Clintons Bosnia airstrikes, GWB's operation find WMD's..errrr Iraqi freedom and Afg.

Is it safe to say we should have stayed out of all of those?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 05:52:49 AM

ok.. ill just assume all this conversation from the right went on with Bush Sr. ODS. Clintons Bosnia airstrikes, GWB's operation find WMD's..errrr Iraqi freedom and Afg.

Is it safe to say we should have stayed out of all of those?

Ahh, the moral equivalence argument. When all else fails....

But to answer your question; yes, we should have stayed out of at least half of those examples you listed.

Why do you pro-Obama guys rationalize all of his actions by comparing them to Bush and co.? Bush, who you guys think was the worst president in the history of this country, should not be used for rationalizing tovarich Obama's actions.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 06:41:28 AM
Obama administration struggles to define American mission in Libya
The Hill ^ | 3/22/2011 | Sam Youngman, John T. Bennett & Russell Berman




The Obama administration scrambled to define the U.S. mission in Libya on Tuesday amid congressional criticism that it has not clearly explained its endgame for the war-torn country.

The White House strongly denied that regime change is part of its mission after a statement earlier in the day characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

Separately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struggled to respond to questions from ABC’s Diane Sawyer over whether the U.S. operation would be a success if Col. Moammar Gadhafi remains in power. Clinton said the United Nations resolution authorizing force against Gadhafi was broad, but included nothing “about getting rid of anybody.”

At the same time, Clinton said it is “highly unlikely” a stable and peaceful Libya can be established with Gadhafi in power. She also said the U.S. mission was intended to give insurgents fighting Gadhafi a “level playing field” and a “much better chance” at toppling the dictator.

 Since the U.S.-led operation started on Saturday, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have raised concerns on the grounds that President Obama went to war with undefined goals and, according to some critics, in violation of his constitutional authority.

Strikes against Gadhafi’s compound have raised questions about whether regime change is a part of the multinational mission, as have conflicting statements from different foreign leaders.

The clarification issued Tuesday by Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, came after a White House-issued readout of a phone call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that installing a democratic system in Libya was a goal of the two leaders. 

In the later statement, Rhodes acknowledged that Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explaining that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.

“We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future,” Rhodes said. “We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.”

The earlier statement on the Obama-Erdogan call said the two leaders had reaffirmed their support for implementation of United Nations security resolutions authorizing force in Libya. After noting that this would require a broad-based international effort, the statement said 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 clarification came as Republicans raised questions about the operation.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House majority whip, said Obama has not been clear on the goals of the U.S. military mission and that he waited too long to intervene.

“I have a concern: What is the mission? What is the goal?” he said in a local television interview in California.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), said he supported the president’s policy but that Obama had “to make clear to the American people and the Congress what his plans are.”

“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” King told The Hill. He said there was a lack of clarity on the mission’s endgame and that Obama had “a very confusing message” on whether the goal was merely to protect civilians or to oust Gadhafi.

“We want Gadhafi out of there, but we’re not using the military to bring that about. It just sends a very confusing message,” King said.

Obama defended the mission in comments in El Salvador on Tuesday, saying it was limited in time and scope and had a well-defined purpose.  He also said the operation had already saved lives.

Senior Republican aides added a new line of criticism Tuesday, telling The Hill that several prominent GOP leaders remain unsatisfied with the amount of consultation they have received from the administration — and over the substance of exchanges that have occurred. In some cases, communication between the Pentagon and the House Armed Services Committee consisted of military officials forwarding transcripts of media briefings to the committee staff, an aide said.

A House Republican leadership aide described the consultation from the administration as “insufficient” and said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had not heard directly from the president about Libya except for a briefing of congressional leaders on Friday.

White House officials said Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, called Boehner on Saturday before the start of military operations.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has been “unsatisfied” with the administration before and during the Libyan operation, said a senior GOP panel aide.

McKeon participated in the Friday briefing via telephone, and received a Saturday telephone call from Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy, a few hours before U.S. and coalition warships and aircraft began bombing Libyan targets.

During the conversation with Flournoy, the aide said McKeon asked several pointed questions. “He said she didn’t have good answers,” the aide said.

McKeon also spoke last week by telephone with the new U.S. Africa Command chief, Gen. Carter Ham, in an introductory phone conversation.

That’s basically been the extent of the official consultation,” the senior aide said, describing those sessions as administration officials “just saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do.’” 

Since the onset of the operation, there has been little official back-and-forth between the Armed Services chairman and either the Pentagon or the White House, according to the senior aide.

Committee staff received some information from the Navy about the operation, and the Pentagon “forwarded over the transcripts” from separate media briefings conducted Sunday and Monday by Adm. William Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, and Ham.

A House leader in the president’s own party also criticized the outreach to lawmakers before the start of military operations.

“I am very concerned that the president committed America's military to operations in the region without true consultation with the Congress,” the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. John Larson (Conn.), wrote in a CNN.com column.

White House officials have pushed back on charges that they did not adequately consult with Congress before launching military action. “We take very seriously the need to consult with Congress, and we have been doing that, and we would welcome any action they took to show support for this,” press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday night.

Rhodes cited congressional hearings that led to the president’s decision, and he said administration officials have briefed relevant oversight committees in recent weeks.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 23, 2011, 07:04:13 AM
 :o


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 07:07:10 AM
This really is Obama's waterloo.     Even members of his own arty are calling for impeaching this freak of nature.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 07:08:22 AM
We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 07:08:42 AM
Ahh, the moral equivalence argument. When all else fails....
But to answer your question; yes, we should have stayed out of at least half of those examples you listed.
Why do you pro-Obama guys rationalize all of his actions by comparing them to Bush and co.? Bush, who you guys think was the worst president in the history of this country, should not be used for rationalizing tovarich Obama's actions.
no this is a seperate issue. I dont agree with this.. I hate this.. I Malcolm Victor Pigford do not like this move by Obama, as i dont like GITMO, the OBAMACARE bill, Lazy foot on DADT, and lack of Infrastructure spending in the Stim bill, the fact that we didnt cut bait Afg and iraq.. I..hopefully for the last time.. Malcolm Victor Pigford being of sound mind and body do denounce any assertions that i am an aggreance with any of these policies enacted by the 44th president of the United States of America Barack Obama....there you go...

Now.. my reason for asking this question is not do defend what i think is awful policy.. as there is more to life than black and white arguments. It is to question the "all or none" Americans who applaud when side A does  something, but when side B does the same EXACT thing, it is scoffed at. But the kicker is, When someone brings up the fact that side A did this quite recently, there seems to be an endless amount of "well when he did it.. the climate was that so it was cool" when infact... its allbad.. but i understand, to some.. thats way too much thinking. They like "red vs Blue" way better


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 23, 2011, 07:21:49 AM
we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

Exactly


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 07:27:32 AM
Exactly


 ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 23, 2011, 07:28:00 AM
Exactly

Exactly what? How exactly is this a good thing? The so called coalition is falling apart, Gaddafi will remain in power.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 07:47:41 AM
Exactly what? How exactly is this a good thing? The so called coalition is falling apart, Gaddafi will remain in power.

And we will look ike total fools and incompetent morons.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 07:50:49 AM
Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message
By REUTERS 
03/13/2011 22:54



Abu Yahya al-Libi urges anti-Gaddafi forces not to retreat; reports of mutiny among Gaddafi forces slowing attack on rebel-held Misrata.
Talkbacks (4) 
 
A senior member of al Qaida urged Libyan rebels to continue their fight against Muammar Gaddafi and warned of the consequences of defeat, in a videotaped message posted on Jihadi websites, the Qatar-based Gulf News reported on Sunday.

The message from Libya native, Abu Yahya al-Libi, marked the first time a top ranked al Qaida commander had commented on the uprising in Libya. Gaddafi has repeatedly blamed al Qaida for inciting the unrest against him.

RELATED:
Terrorism: Whither al-Qaida?
Libyan troops push back rebels from oil town
Libyan forces say they cleared 'armed gangs' from Brega

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Gaddafi for more than 40 years ... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” Abu Yahya stated.

He warned that "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

Abu Yahya also accused the West, and the US in particular, of having supported oppresive Arab regimes at the expense of the people.

The taped message could not be independently authenticated, according to the Gulf Times report.

An assault on Libya's rebel-held city of Misrata was stalled on Sunday by renewed fighting between members of Muammar Gaddafi's security forces, rebels said, but the government denied reports of a mutiny.

Residents said fighting broke out on Saturday after some units of the Libyan leader's force refused to attack Misrata, Libya's third-biggest city and the only place in the west of the country still openly defying Gaddafi's rule.

The reports of a mutiny could not be verified because Libyan authorities have not allowed reporters access to the city of 300,000 which is 200 km (130 miles) east of the capital.

"From the early morning they (the security forces) are fighting among each other. We hear the fighting," Mohammed, one of the rebel fighters, told Reuters by telephone on Sunday.

"This division between them came to us from God. Just when we thought the end was coming, this happened. Now we are waiting to see what will happen."

MUTINY REPORTS "RUBBISH"

Asked about reports of a mutiny in Misrata, government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim said: "This is rubbish. It is not true."

"The army has surrounded the centre of Misrata. They are in the city. Tribal elders are talking to them (the rebels) to surrender," he said in Tripoli.



Misrata residents said they could hear the sound of heavy fighting from a military airfield to the south of the town, where pro-Gaddafi forces have been based. They said there were no clashes between rebels and security forces on Sunday.

"They (Gaddafi's forces) are still fighting each other. The shelling hit a house and a shop in southern Misrata, I don't know whether there are any casualties," said rebel spokesman Gemal.

He said shops in the city were open as normal, but added: "Of course there is tension as everybody is waiting to see what will happen."


More about: Al-Qaeda, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Tripoli, Reuters

  Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email


http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Kadaffi sent the names of jihadists to our govt so we could look out for them.  He 'played ball' after we pulled saddam out of his spider hole, remember?

Of course al-Q is going to back the other guys.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 07:56:58 AM
Kadaffi sent the names of jihadists to our govt so we could look out for them.  He 'played ball' after we pulled saddam out of his spider hole, remember?

Of course al-Q is going to back the other guys.


So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 07:59:34 AM

So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it. 

he was born in kenya, despite what certain lib cowards will tell you.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 08:15:17 AM

So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it.  

Obama = war criminal, ally to terrorists and supporter of people who murder American civilians.

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

So you support military intervention in Yemen and Syria.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 08:21:27 AM
Obama = war criminal, ally to terrorists and supporter of people who murder American civilians.

Kadaffi also killed american citizens.  Blew up a plane. 

So you support military intervention in Yemen and Syria.

shit no.  we have no business there.  i'm against any libyan intervention.  This would have been over a few days ago if we had stayed out of it.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 08:22:30 AM
Kadaffi also killed american citizens.  Blew up a plane. 

shit no.  we have no business there.  i'm against any libyan intervention.  This would have been over a few days ago if we had stayed out of it.

You're against it? Could have fooled me as you've done nothing but rationalize it since they started the bombings.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 08:23:18 AM
bf.. did you see my above post


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 08:54:34 AM
no this is a seperate issue. I dont agree with this.. I hate this.. I Malcolm Victor Pigford do not like this move by Obama, as i dont like GITMO, the OBAMACARE bill, Lazy foot on DADT, and lack of Infrastructure spending in the Stim bill, the fact that we didnt cut bait Afg and iraq.. I..hopefully for the last time.. Malcolm Victor Pigford being of sound mind and body do denounce any assertions that i am an aggreance with any of these policies enacted by the 44th president of the United States of America Barack Obama....there you go...

Now.. my reason for asking this question is not do defend what i think is awful policy.. as there is more to life than black and white arguments. It is to question the "all or none" Americans who applaud when side A does  something, but when side B does the same EXACT thing, it is scoffed at. But the kicker is, When someone brings up the fact that side A did this quite recently, there seems to be an endless amount of "well when he did it.. the climate was that so it was cool" when infact... its allbad.. but i understand, to some.. thats way too much thinking. They like "red vs Blue" way better

Haha, just breaking your balls, man. Debating you is much more worthwhile than watching one of the other douche bags like blacken copy/paste whatever MSNBC article/clip they can find to prove their point.

But I agree completely with your point about a lot of "all or nothing" Americans. They're on both sides. My claims stem from the fact that people constantly rationalize Obama's actions by comparing them to Bush's when they should be criticized, not rationalized. Not so much you but I see other people on here constantly justifying Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush,even when the entire thought process behind electing Obama was to go in the opposite direction of Bush.

But I digress, that's why I'm registered independent and swing vote on issues and not along party lines.  8)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 08:57:29 AM
CAIR praises Gadhafi and asks him to fund distribution of 1 million Korans across America

(IPT)- Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked Muammar Gaddafi to underwrite CAIR’s efforts in the United States during a September 2009 audience with the Libyan dictator.

According to an account of the meeting in a Libyan news website, Awad was joined by two other leading CAIR officials in praising Gaddafi’s leadership and asking him to help underwrite a program to distribute 1 million copies of the Quran to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation Awad was trying to launch.

The account was published in Arabic by Libyalive.net, and was translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Libyalive.net describes itself as “an independent Libyan electronic newspaper,” but the story about Gaddafi’s visit is attributed to the Jamahiriya News Agency, Libya’s official state news service.

Awad’s pleas to Gaddafi’s generosity came after the Libyan leader left United Nations observers slack jawed at his rambling, 100-minute speech to the General Assembly.

Now, after Gaddafi started killing his own people as he tries to fend off a popular uprising, Awad and CAIR have denounced him as a madman. They have organized rallies and news conferences demanding that violence against Libyan civilians by Gaddafi’s forces stop.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/2709/cair-officials-sought-gaddafi-money


CAIR = terrorist organization


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Option D on March 23, 2011, 08:58:41 AM
Haha, just breaking your balls, man. Debating you is much more worthwhile than watching one of the other douche bags like blacken copy/paste whatever MSNBC article/clip they can find to prove their point.

But I agree completely with your point about a lot of "all or nothing" Americans. They're on both sides. My claims stem from the fact that people constantly rationalize Obama's actions by comparing them to Bush's when they should be criticized, not rationalized. Not so much you but I see other people on here constantly justifying Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush,even when the entire thought process behind electing Obama was to go in the opposite direction of Bush.

But I digress, that's why I'm registered independent and swing vote on issues and not along party lines.  8)

cool.. my vote goes to Nader if he runs again


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 08:59:48 AM
You're against it? Could have fooled me as you've done nothing but rationalize it since they started the bombings.

I'm 10000% against any US involvement in Libya.  I said as sad as it was, we should have let him kill the armed rebels (who were in fact trying a govt overthrow), and it would be back to peaceful libya trade partners now.

However, when obama does it anyway, I like to analyze WHY and look at the political ramifications.  i can only say "I'm against US involvement" so many times before I grow bored and like to talk about higher level motivations, etc.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: dario73 on March 23, 2011, 09:02:07 AM
we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

Key words.  So it's ok to bomb another country as long as it's inexpensive. Gotcha.  In that case, Venezuela should be next. Don't have to sail or fly that far.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 09:03:32 AM
Key words.  So it's ok to bomb another country as long as it's inexpensive. Gotcha.  In that case, Venezuela should be next. Don't have to sail or fly that far.

Yemen and Syria are even closer, two countries that have been lighting up protesters left and right.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 09:04:31 AM
I'm 10000% against any US involvement in Libya.  I said as sad as it was, we should have let him kill the armed rebels (who were in fact trying a govt overthrow), and it would be back to peaceful libya trade partners now.

However, when obama does it anyway, I like to analyze WHY and look at the political ramifications.  i can only say "I'm against US involvement" so many times before I grow bored and like to talk about higher level motivations, etc.

If Gadaffi prevails - how will this look for bama?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 09:05:25 AM
we shouldn't be in any of these countries.

however, if you compare it to the initial phases of iraq - brutal shock n awe... 1700 sorties... 500 cruise missiles.

it's cheap!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
we shouldn't be in any of these countries.

however, if you compare it to the initial phases of iraq - brutal shock n awe... 1700 sorties... 500 cruise missiles.

it's cheap!

 ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 09:08:17 AM
If Gadaffi prevails - how will this look for bama?

shitty if kadaffi stays.

and if kadaffi flees/killed, it will mean obama got one of the most wanted terrorists on earth.

However, kadaffi was on the ropes and needed foreign paid fighters just to stay alive a month ago.  The $ pipeline is gonna dry up.  And foreign mercs might be happy to kill local rebels with sticks for a paycheck... but how many of them will now take the check and leave before US cruise missiles cook them?  How many mercs will fight to the death, given the US reputation and power?  My guess is, not many...

Wait til his october surprise... imagine him pulling osama out of the basement and asking Candidate Palin what she would have done differently.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 09:20:12 AM
shitty if kadaffi stays.

and if kadaffi flees/killed, it will mean obama got one of the most wanted terrorists on earth.

However, kadaffi was on the ropes and needed foreign paid fighters just to stay alive a month ago.  The $ pipeline is gonna dry up.  And foreign mercs might be happy to kill local rebels with sticks for a paycheck... but how many of them will now take the check and leave before US cruise missiles cook them?  How many mercs will fight to the death, given the US reputation and power?  My guess is, not many...

Wait til his october surprise... imagine him pulling osama out of the basement and asking Candidate Palin what she would have done differently.

Actually, it was reported on the John Batchelor show last night that Gadhafi has enough gold in reserve to fund an insurgency until the end of time. He's not running out of money anytime soon.

Gadhafi leaving still isn't going to help Obama as Obama has already said removing Gadhafi wasn't the plan. This is one monumental clusterfuck and you aren't capable of spinning it.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 23, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Actually, it was reported on the John Batchelor show last night that Gadhafi has enough gold in reserve to fund an insurgency until the end of time. He's not running out of money anytime soon.

Gadhafi leaving still isn't going to help Obama as Obama has already said removing Gadhafi wasn't the plan. This is one monumental clusterfuck and you aren't capable of spinning it.

in that case, I will concede that finance point.

What about the other point?  The fact his foreign defenders just may split as the US forces close in?  Saddam's people were fmailiy, and many of them split.  Imagine some dude from another country being asked to fight to the death.  They'll take their paychecks and split - OR - the USA will put a $25 mil bounty on his head... see how fast one of them caps him.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
in that case, I will concede that finance point.

What about the other point?  The fact his foreign defenders just may split as the US forces close in?  Saddam's people were fmailiy, and many of them split.  Imagine some dude from another country being asked to fight to the death.  They'll take their paychecks and split - OR - the USA will put a $25 mil bounty on his head... see how fast one of them caps him.



Gadhafi enjoys wide support in Libya. I'd even say that the "rebels" don't even make up 50% of the people there (probably more like 25%). If he goes there isn't anything to say that Libya won't devolve into a massive civil war as the dominant tribes in that country don't like each other.

No one knows dick about these rebels and they couldn't possibly be more disorganized. This whole endeavor has disaster written all over it.

What will be your excuse then?  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 23, 2011, 10:11:20 AM
:o

I thought you were supposed to be a man of God and you show a picture like this???


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 10:12:29 AM
I thought you were supposed to be a man of God and you show a picture like this???

Obama is supposed to be a man of faith and launches missles on people, tortures, etc?


NO BLOOD FOR OIL!   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 23, 2011, 10:13:48 AM
Obama is supposed to be a man of faith and launches missles on people, tortures, etc?


NO BLOOD FOR OIL!   

Don't be a dummy...Bush was a man of faith as well.......


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 12:50:19 PM
Navy chief: We’re not sure what the next stage is in Libya
hot air ^ | 3/23/11 | Allahpundit



He’ll be handing over leadership of the mission to someone at some point, but the details are still as vague and gassy as one of those “jobs created or saved” graphs.

Adm. Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, said that he has received no guidance on the path ahead for command and control of the no-fly zone, no-drive zone, no-sail zone, arms embargo enforcement, and any other missions currently being managed by U.S. Africom Commander Gen. Carter Ham, who is in Germany. NATO has been battling internally over whether to take command, while the French government’s latest proposal is to set up a “political steering committee” made of Western and Arab foreign ministers…

Roughead also said there’s no guarantee that U.S. military forces would be able to decrease their presence or activities when the transition takes place. In other words, the U.S. military might give up control, but still be doing most of the work.

Not only is there no guarantee, the U.S. role in the skies over Libya has actually increased this week. Danger Room crunches the numbers: On Monday, more than half of the 80 missions over Qaddafiland were flown by U.S. allies. Over the past 24 hours, of 175 missions flown, the USAF has been responsible for 113. Maybe that’s a temporary blip, part of an all-out push to obliterate Qaddafi’s air force before letting less competent air forces take the lead. (If so, it’s been a success.) Or, more ominously, maybe it’s because some of our allies lack the capacity to sustain a bombardment campaign against a tinpot dictator beyond a few days.


(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 02:18:39 PM
Speaker Boehner Letter to President Obama on Military Action in Libya
Speaker of the House of Representatives ^ | Wednesday, March 23, 2011 | John Boehner




March 23, 2011


President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 2011, outlining your Administration’s actions regarding Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn. The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights. The news yesterday that a U.S. fighter jet involved in this operation crashed is a reminder of the high stakes of any military action abroad and the high price our Nation has paid in blood and treasure to advance the cause of freedom through our history.

I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief and support our troops as they carry out their mission. But I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission. In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered. At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.

It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved. Here are some of the questions I believe must be answered:

A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy. You have stated that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi must go, consistent with U.S. policy goals. But the U.N. resolution the U.S. helped develop and signed onto makes clear that regime change is not part of this mission. In light of this contradiction, is it an acceptable outcome for Qadhafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes in Libya? If not, how will he be removed from power? Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?

In announcing that our Armed Forces would lead the preliminary strikes in Libya, you said it was necessary to “enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.” Do we know which partners will be taking the lead? Are there clear lines of authority and responsibility and a chain of command? Operationally, does enforcement of a no-fly zone require U.S. forces to attack non-air or command and control operations for land-based battlefield activities, such as armored vehicles, tanks, and combatants?

You have said that the support of the international community was critical to your decision to strike Libya. But, like many Americans, it appears many of our coalition partners are themselves unclear on the policy goals of this mission. If the coalition dissolves or partners continue to disengage, will the American military take on an increased role? Will we disengage?

Since the stated U.S. policy goal is removing Qadhafi from power, do you have an engagement strategy for the opposition forces? If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted conflict, what are your Administration's objectives for engaging with opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by our government?

Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.” After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations? After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action? If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?

We are currently in the process of setting priorities for the coming year in the budget. Has the Department of Defense estimated the total cost, direct and indirect, associated with this mission? While you said yesterday that the cost of this mission could be paid for out of already-appropriated funds, do you anticipate requesting any supplemental funds from Congress to pay for ongoing operations in Libya?

Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East. The American people deserve answers to these questions. And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?

The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives. It is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional leaders, as was the custom of your predecessors, before your decision as Commander-in-Chief to deploy into combat the men and women of our Armed Forces. Understanding some information required to respond may be classified, I look forward to a complete response.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 23, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
BREAKING: Qaddafi Compound Struck Again, According to U.S. Military Commander (2nd time)
FOX News ^ | 3-23-2011 | NA




Just breaking across FOX now. Second time that the Qaddafi compound has been struck. Unknown if Qaddafi was present.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 23, 2011, 04:13:27 PM
Let Us Count the Ways . . .
March 23, 2011 11:03 A.M.
By Victor Davis Hanson 
Why are many conservatives against the Libyan war? Is it, as alleged, political opportunism — given their prior support for the 2001 and 2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. Most of us support wholeheartedly our troops now that we are in, but opposed the intervention for reasons that were clear before we attacked, and are even clearer now. Among them:

1) Timing: If the administration believed this monster should have left, it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum, and not issued threats and demands for Qaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow such saber-rattling up. Fairly or not, the administration established a goal that it now seems to be backing away from, as it talks of toning down the operation before it is even a week old. We boasted about storming Vienna, pulled up at its outskirts, froze, and are now bewildered that someone inside actually is fighting back.

2) Approval: To start a third war in the Middle East, the president should have first gone to Congress, especially since he and Vice President Biden have compiled an entire corpus of past speeches, some quite incendiary, equating presidential military intervention without congressional approval with illegality to the point of an impeachable offense (cf. Biden’s warning to Bush over a possible Iran strike). And why boast of U.N. and Arab League approval but not seek the sanction of the U.S. Congress?

3) Consistency: Why is meddling okay in Libya but was not okay in Iran when dissidents there were likewise making headway? Is there any rationale that determines our response to unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, or Libya? It seems we are making it up ad hoc, always in reaction to the perceived pulse of popular demonstrations — always a hit-and-miss, day-late-dollar-short proposition.

4) Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

5) Hypocrisy: This Libyan war is transpiring in a political climate where, for the last ten years, Obama and his supporters have lectured us that it is not only amoral and unwise but illegal for America to attack an oil-producing Muslim country that does not threaten our national security, a sin magnified if committed without congressional approval. It also follows similar demagoguery on Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detentions, etc. — measures blasted as near-criminality under Bush but embraced or expanded under Obama. In this regard, the prior rhetoric of an Eric Holder or a Harold Koh bears no resemblance to their present action — a hypocrisy that follows from the president himself.

6) Means and Ends: The monthly federal budget deficit now exceeds the yearly deficit prior to when Bush went into Iraq — at a time when we are engaged in two other Middle East theaters, gas is soaring, inflation is back, and we have borrowed $5 trillion since this administration took office.

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

Add the above up, and I think Team Obama will find that even Democratic diehards and neocon sympathizers will soon bail, and very soon. Like it or not, to salvage this mess, the Obama administration is going to have to get rid of Qaddafi, do it very quickly, and argue that what follows is somewhat better.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262849/let-us-count-ways-victor-davis-hanson


Good summary of how foolish this endeavor is.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 01:43:53 AM
My god you guys are pussies.

We had/have 2 shitty wars under Bush, here we actually has a rebel force fighting the dictator and they just need a helping hand.

We are preventing genocide committed by a dictator who is responsible for several terrorist acts.

And all you do is whine like a bunch of fucking liberals.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 02:07:00 AM
Yawn.  Genocide?  More people have been murdered in the us in the last year. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 03:15:02 AM
March 24, 2011
The Damning Contradictions of Obama's Attack on Libya
By Michael Barone




Let's imagine that all goes well in Libya. The rebels, protected by air strikes, recapture lost territory and sweep into Tripoli. Moammar Gadhafi and his sons one way or the other disappear.

Leaders propose a democratic and secular constitution that voters overwhelmingly approve. The first act of the duly elected government is to issue a proclamation of thanks and friendship to the United States, Britain, France and others who prevented Gadhafi's mass slaughter.

 Receive news alerts

Sign Up
 
Michael Barone RealClearPolitics
Barack Obama Bill Clinton

George W. Bush Libya
United States Afghanistan
Iraq France
Britain Congress
National Security Council Tripoli
  • More 
Well, we can all dream, can't we?

But in the cold light of day, none of these happy eventualities seems very likely. As one who hopes for success in this enterprise, I am dismayed by the contradictions in the course we are following.

Some three weeks ago, Barack Obama said Gadhafi "must go." But the United Nations Security Council resolution under which we are acting stops well short of this goal.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen confirmed that Gadhafi may remain in power indefinitely. National Security Council staffer Ben Rhodes said, "It's not about regime change."

If not, then the purported purpose of the operation, to "protect civilians," could be of unlimited duration. Libya might well be divided between a Gadhafi regime in the west around Tripoli and a rebel regime in the east around Benghazi.

Maintaining the existence of the latter will likely require military force. Obama has conceded that the United States is currently in command of operations, but says that command will be handed off to others in "days, not weeks."

But news reports make it clear that the overwhelming majority of military forces in action are American. Putting a British or French officer in command will not change that. And putting U.S. forces under foreign command might weaken support for the enterprise here at home.

Obama's policy is reminiscent of the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. The policy satisfies advocates of humanitarian intervention, like the National Security Council's Samantha Power, who remember Bill Clinton's regret that he didn't intervene to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.

Unfortunately, in order to satisfy those who oppose anything smacking of unilateralism, it took time to get the U.N. Security Council to act, so that we missed the moment when it seemed possible that recognition of a rebel government or imposition of a no-fly zone would topple Gadhafi.

That delay gave him time to launch a counterattack that made him strong enough to withstand the limited military action that could get multilateral approval.

By accepting limits on U.S. involvement, Obama aims to satisfy skeptics of military action, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who publicly pointed out the difficulties of maintaining a no-fly zone. We have seen this before, when Obama announced his surge in Afghanistan together with a deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawals.

The result in Libya is a policy whose means seem unlikely to produce the desired ends.

In the process, this Democratic president has jettisoned some of the basic tenets of his party's foreign policy.

"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007. But Congress was not informed or, it seems, consulted in any serious way about this decision to take military action in Libya.

Instead, members of Congress, like the general public, heard the president make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.

Since then, many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution.

Bush argued that intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was in the national interest. Obama, who has made the same argument about Afghanistan, doesn't seem to be making it about Libya. For some supporters of his policy, the absence of any great national interest makes it all the more attractive.

It's not likely to remain attractive to American voters if it fails to result in the overthrow of Gadhafi and leads to an open-ended military commitment in a nation where our vital interests are not at stake.

But a better outcome is at least possible. After all, history shows that dreams sometimes do come true.

 

Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/24/the_damning_contradictions_of_obamas_attack_on_libya_109331.html at March 24, 2011 - 06:13:34 AM CDT


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 03:17:28 AM
The Middle East
Jonathan Cristol & Charles Dunne
← Time Running Out for ActionMarch 22, 2011
Down the Rabbit Hole
Adam Garfinkle


http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/middleeast/2011/03/22/down-the-rabbit-hole


 
To all appearances, U.S. foreign policy in the Obama Administration has now definitively gone down the rabbit hole. It is intoxicated with an advanced form of Wilsonian madness, one shorn of all sensitivity to the consequences of the U.S. government’s behavior. Like Alice with her pills, some things are getting or will soon get bigger—risks, mission definition and casualty figures on the ground in Libya—while others are getting smaller—our reservoir of good options, our stock of common sense and our peace of mind.

I do not invoke Lewis Carroll lightly. I do so in this case for a special reason: words we thought we all understood have now become encrusted with bizarre new meanings, or no meanings at all, as if our vocabulary has been hexed by Humpty Dumpty himself. Let me ask President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes and the rest of the crew (not to exclude accomplices like Nicholas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Ban Ki-Moon and the execrable Amr Moussa) that has steered us into this gratuitous mess, to define “civilian” for me. What does it mean, folks? Does it include fairly well organized groups of Libyans attacking in formation with machine guns mounted on flatbed pick-up trucks? Apparently so, to some spellbound souls. This turns the Clinton Administration’s amusing little tiff over what “is” is into truly small change as America’s language follies go.

Words of many kinds have been flying fast and furious over the past few days, and so have cruise missiles, bombs and bullets. Those I’ve taken most to heart are words of criticism for a policy so confused that no observer has yet been able to match the means being employed to the mission’s stated purpose. It’s not easy to say anything original at this point, but it seems to me that a simple recitation in the right order of what has already been said might be of some service to clear thinking. That recitation need be composed of just three key points.

* * *

First, the military mission lacks any realistic or coherent definition. As far as the authorizing UN resolution and President Obama have said, the mission is to protect civilians. This is a humanitarian action. But the civilians compose a political opposition locked in a literally life-and-death struggle with a frightened and ruthless regime—and it was the opposition, let us remember, that started this fight last month. We are, let us be frank, intervening in someone else’s civil war. There are no humanitarians, and very few mere civilians, in Libya right now, because the struggle has at its base a tribal conflict, which the U.S. media has managed to ignore almost in its entirety.

There is no mystery as to why the opposition arose in Benghazi, in Cyrenaica, while the capital and Qaddafi’s loyalists are mainly in the old province of Tripolitania. I frankly doubt whether the advisers egging the President on in Libya have ever heard these proper nouns before, or have heard of Sannusiya (the Sufi order movement that helped ignite Libyan opposition to Italian colonialism), or know much of anything at all about the place. For them, the history of the region seems to have begun in December 2010, when Mohammed Bouazzi immolated himself in Tunis. And surely the Western laws-of-war distinction between soldiers and civilians is universal, right?

U.S. policy, on its face, suggests the absurd notion that if the Qaddafi regime stops targeting “civilians”, then we are fine with its continued incumbency. Yes, the President has said many times lately that Qaddafi has to go, but he never said that U.S. military forces were to be the proximate agent of that outcome. This is a lawyer’s cleverness bucking up against reality, however, and in this instance at least, the lawyer is bound to convince no one. (It was a lawyer’s way of thinking, too, to have privileged the attainment of multilateral cover above the need to know what the hell one was actually doing.) Clearly, the only way to reliably protect these “civilians” is to change the regime. Having started this foolish war, that is the only way it can end without producing sheer calamity—not that any end state that one can reasonably foresee is risk-free at this point.

There is another reason why regime change has to displace an impossible humanitarianism as the policy’s goal: this is French policy, and the French seem bound to take the lead in this effort, if we can find a way to pass off the command to them, or to them in league with the British. French policy bears its own mysteries, to be sure, but a lack of clarity about the mission is not among them. The French early on recognized the rebels as the provisional government of Libya and have stated unequivocally that the end of the Qaddafi regime is the purpose of the intervention. It eludes me, I confess, why the French have been so adamant about Libya, and why now. It also eludes me why, after having rejoined NATO’s military structure in 2009, Paris now refuses to allow the mission to become a NATO operation. This is an insistence that makes life particularly hard for the very worried Italians who, above and beyond all Europeans are in Qaddafi’s crosshairs for, as he sees it, the sin of betrayal. (There are lots of Libyan émigrés on Italy, each of them now likely to be seen by some Italians as potential terrorists.) But at least President Sarkozy can string together two thoughts and conclude that nothing short of regime change can justify releasing all the demons that this war has already set free.

Second, the means don’t match the only plausible, logical definition of the mission.  A no-fly zone cannot, and never could, end this fight among the Libyans. This is not a set-battle conventional war; it’s a messy insurgency/counterinsurgency brawl without fixed fronts or large concentrations of forces. Air forces can do only so much, even with special-forces spotters on the ground helping them. And they can do less in the face of the fiction that their mission is to protect “civilians.” Indeed, if we take the UN resolution and the President at their word, what exactly do senior U.S. commanders tell their pilots? What possible ROEs make sense in a situation like this, where we are intelligence blind as well as way too high in the sky to distinguish friend from foe and avoid friendly-fire catastrophe?

I recently spent five and a half days (February 22-March 1) aboard the USS Boxer, a helicopter landing deck ship with a crew of about 900 “blue” sailors and 1,800 “green” Marines. I had many conversations with officers and some enlisted men and women as we sailed from San Diego to Pearl Harbor on the first leg of their 7-month deployment, and some of those conversations were with Marine pilots of the Boxer’s 20 helicopters (Cobras and Hueys) and 6 Harrier jets. I can just imagine their eyes turning into saucers on getting orders to use their craft to protect “civilians” fighting in close-combat with Libyan army forces. I can imagine them wishing to reply, in effect, “You want me to do what, with a Harrier jet?!”, but holding their very patriotic tongues. Those must be something like the orders Marine pilots have already received on the Boxer’s sister ship, the USS Kearsarge, which is right now in the Med off the Libyan coast. These pilots will do their level best to comply with whatever ROE’s they’re given, but I feel deeply sorry for them as they confront orders to do the virtually impossible. I also feel badly for General Carter Ham, who is trying to put the best face he can on what he knows to be an incoherent set of orders. I wonder how Secretary Gates is feeling about all this? In a way it doesn’t matter now; it seems to me that he has no choice but to resign.

Clearly, only boots on the ground of one sort or another can oust Qaddafi and his bloodthirsty son, which is, again, the only way to bring the current phase of fighting under control. Whose boots will they be?

The President prefers that the “Libyan people” do it by themselves. That is of course preferable, but it is not and never was very likely. The rebels say, in effect, “Sure, we’ll do it; we just need your air forces to pummel the regime into clouds of pink meat for us first.” That is tantamount to not exactly doing it all by themselves, and it certainly asks the pilots to do vastly more than protect civilians.

Suppose, then, that the French take their mission definition seriously and determine to go in on the ground to finish Qaddafi and son. Can French forces actually do this? Assuming they can get to the fight in sufficient numbers and hook up with the opposition (French and British special forces have been quietly on the ground in Libya now for weeks), can they prevail? This is not clear. What if the British help a lot? Can the two allies together do it, not as a NATO operation (unless the French relent on that point) but as something else, and a something else that will have neither UN nor Arab League imprimatur? (The relevant UN resolution explicitly rules out foreign troops on Libyan soil, and the Arab League will never endorse the return of “colonialist” forces to the region.)  Under these political circumstances, and with an abstinent German government snarking unhelpfully over their shoulders, it is by no means clear that a major Franco-British effort will be forthcoming, or that if it is it will succeed. Echoes of Suez?

So what happens if the French and British try but do not succeed in a reasonably expeditious way? What happens is about as obvious as it gets: not Suez happens.  The Americans come and save the day, as they demurred from doing in October 1956.  The French and British know in their heart of hearts that we cannot let them fail miserably at this, or that’s what they suppose. I suppose they’re right.

What this means is that the President may before very long be forced to make the most excruciating decision of his life: to send American soldiers into harm’s way to save the Western alliance—even from an operation that is not explicitly a NATO mission!—in a contingency that has no strategic rationale to begin with; or not, leaving the alliance in ruins and Qaddafi bursting with plans to exact revenge.

I think the President simply cannot allow that latter outcome. So this is no ordinary, run-of-the-mill mission creep we’re about to encounter if our allies cannot turn the trick. That’s why I propose naming the next stage of the coalition mission, should it assume a U.S.-led shape and dimension, Operation Rapid Serpent.

Third, we’ve started a war we won’t know how to end. We have a great deal riding on the success of the Franco-British operation, assuming one actually takes shape in a hurry. If it doesn’t work, the U.S. government is very likely going to be dragged, even with the President privately kicking and screaming all the way, to a mission definition (again, the only logical one available) that will presage an open-ended commitment. As I have said, a Qaddafi left armed and dangerous when the dust settles is an unacceptable outcome. Civilian planes will likely start failing out the sky, as did the one over Lockerbie; assassination attempts will multiply, like the attempted Libyan-backed murder of the Saudi king in 2003; al-Qaeda and affiliates might be aided and abetted to do Lord-knows-what to the Italians, the French, the British and, of course, to us. With nothing to lose, and way beyond the threshold of worrying about sanctions and such, Qaddafi could well become more dangerous than ever. If I were Silvio Berlusconi, in particular, I’d pick my future whorehouses with extreme care.

Ah, but suppose some boots on the ground do get Qaddafi and son; that, unfortunately, will not necessarily spell the end of the conflict. Of course, if democracy breaks out in a post-Qaddafi Libya, everything will be sunshine and roses—except that is about as likely to happen as a hookah-smoking caterpillar offering you a tuna on rye, with a pickle. Or about as likely as such a clean and clear endpoint to the battle in Iraq ever was. Whenever there is a conflict in a far-off land between some protesting horde and some morally unaesthetic incumbent government, the Manichean American mind rushes ineluctably to the conclusion that the throng in the street has to be a democracy movement. It’s the Children of the Sons of Light against the Children of the Sons of Darkness over, and over, and over again, except of course that it’s almost never quite that simple or clear-cut. This amounts to a pre-adolescent understanding of any region, and the Arab world isn’t just any region.

As noted, there is a regional and tribal element to the fight in Libya. It is unlikely that the Benghazi-based rebels could by themselves establish stable control over the whole country. It is almost as unlikely that the Tripolitanian tribes could re-establish firm control over Cyrenaica. Qaddafi managed the feat through a combination of patronage, terror and cooptation. That will be a very hard act to follow in the wake of so much bloodletting. We are therefore looking into the maw of a Libya that may well be divided, in the throes of some kind of protracted, at least low-level civil war, and that could very easily produce an insurgency spilling over the Egyptian and Tunisian borders—complete with refugees, the usual dysfunctional NGO triage operations and all the rest. And in due course, if the fractious mess lasts long enough, there is a reasonable prospect that al-Qaeda will find a way to establish a foothold amid the mayhem.

Who will want to send in peacekeepers to baby-sit a Libya that looks like that?  Who’ll want to go to the UN to get the job authorized? The African Union?

Now, given that this sort of problem is foreseeable, and that it was also foreseeable before the cruise missiles started flying on Saturday, it stands to reason that a responsible, serious government will have thought about all this in advance, and come up with some plan for the post-combat “Phase IV” of the Libyan War, right?  Not on your life; the President and his war council almost certainly have not even begun to think about this sort of thing, because they’re still in denial that it could happen. This is, after all, just a limited, humanitarian mission as far as they’re concerned. They don’t realize it yet, but these guys are on a path to make even Donny Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks look good—and you thought that was impossible.

*  *  *

These three observations do not, of course, exhaust the madness of what the Administration has done. This Libya caper will constitute a huge, compound distraction. Not only will it distract us from longer-term challenges, mainly in Asia, that will determine the success or failure of America’s grand strategy of forward presence on the flanks of Eurasia, it will also distract us from even more portentous Middle Eastern dangers. Just yesterday the head of the Yemeni army withdrew his support for President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This portends a major, multifaceted tribe-and-clan based civil war with a potential to put core U.S. security interests at risk—for an anarchic Yemen, a mountainous country with four times the population of Libya, can host a sanctuary for al-Qaeda that will make their Taliban-era digs pale by comparison. And in Yemen, al-Qaeda already has a kind of defense-in-depth across the Bab al-Mandeb in what’s left of Somalia.

Even Bahrain is more important inherently than Libya; but that’s another story.

There is more, too—albeit of a more abstract nature. Before we started this crazy war, what was going on in the region was all about the Arabs—the good Arabs, the bad Arabs, the other Arabs, all the Arabs, some of the Arabs, whatever. In both their eyes and ours, it was about them. Now it is, or will soon be, about us. Every quark’s worth of negative energy in the region will in due course be drawn as if by a magnet to us, as the Arabs resume their favorite sport of exporting responsibility for their own circumstances onto others. We will subject the region, yet again, to the equivalent of the U.S. Heisenberg Effect, especially if we’re forced to bail out our allies. We’ve seen this film before. It’s a tragedy.

And finally, it bears note that the use of Western military power in Libya is bound to color the political processes going on in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and elsewhere. How will it color them? We have no clue, which is why launching a war without thinking about the broader consequences is, well—how to put it?—not a good idea. Some commentators, like one in today’s New York Times, for example, who have favored a forward-learning policy from the beginning of the Libya crisis, are now starting to worry about the possible downside implications. It used to be that serious people thought through the implications of policy proposals before they advocated them, and before the bombs and missiles started raining down. Better late than never? Maybe. Embarrassing in any case? Um…..

It wasn’t mad to advocate the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya two or three weeks ago. Some reasoned that the psychology of the thing might have been enough to push Qaddafi out when the battle was flowing against him. Some believed, against all evidence, that a no-fly zone could be militarily effective. Some have reasoned that Qaddafi would become more dangerous if he survived his domestic challenge even in the absence of a Western intervention, so we could not let him survive if the rebels could not finish him off. That was not evidence of madness either, but it was speculative enough, in my view, to counsel waiting a good long while before shooting. It also failed to reckon seriously the downside of the undertaking and to identify other policy options short of war.

What is crazy, however, is the consequences-be-damned argument for war on humanitarian grounds that the President has apparently embraced, and the utter vacuum of strategic thinking that seems to be its handmaiden. It would have been far better to leave this hornet’s nest alone, but now that we have poked it with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordnance, the worst possible posture to adopt is that of a Boy Scout helping an old lady across the street when only that of a warrior (hopefully French and/or British) will do.

I wish the President had never opened his big eloquent mouth about Libya, and I wish we had not started this war; but wishing won’t make it go away. I have no intention of waxing banal and invoking Vietnam, because Libya has nothing to do with Vietnam; there are no quagmires in a place that, from a military point of view, is an island in the sense that every target worth hitting can be hit from the sea. But I do suspect that this can only end badly, and that what is left to policy at this point is to figure out the least bad of all possible outcomes and struggle toward it. It’s times like these that make me thank Heaven that I am no longer working for the U.S. Government. My best wishes to those who are; they now need all the luck they can get.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 03:17:34 AM
Yawn.  Genocide?  More people have been murdered in the us in the last year. 

Okay sure then we just leave the Brits with their dick in their hand.
You wanna sell them out. My god i wouldnt have you by my side if things got heated


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 03:20:48 AM
Okay sure then we just leave the Brits with their dick in their hand.
You wanna sell them out. My god i wouldnt have you by my side if things got heated

 ::)  ::)

This is not about Gadafi attacking or theatening the bris, USA or French you fool. 



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 03:21:56 AM
I know but the British are going in so we must support them thats how alliances work


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 03:24:42 AM
Obama squanders America’s legacy
By Charles Hurt
-
The Washington Times
10:20 p.m., Tuesday, March 22, 2011


Welcome to the post-America world. If the last one was the American Century, this century is the one in which an internationalist president abdicates our crown as leader of the free world and shuffles America randomly into the deck of nations.

No better, no worse. No greater, no lesser.

Just a country stuck somewhere between Uganda and Uzbekistan. We come in right before Uruguay!

How painfully and awkwardly Mr. Obama steps forward and timidly flexes the mighty sword that was bequeathed to him. Even his most uninspired and uninspiring predecessors at least understood they had inherited an American legacy that was the gleaming beacon of freedom and humanity around the globe.

America was the land of true Hope — not some cynical empty promise deployed just to win a small political victory.

Even Mr. Obama's most humble predecessors did not apologize for the great country they led. They did not bow before dictators and beg forgiveness for America's excesses, which are but a small price to pay for actual and untidy freedom.

And they certainly were not embarrassed by the unequaled strength of our military power.

This cat got so full of the heebie-jeebies, he couldn't split town fast enough. No little military inconvenience would keep him from high-tailing it to Rio.

In his strange and remote announcement over the weekend of America's war footing, Mr. Obama repeatedly said that our Navy would pummel Libya from the sea, but at no point would troops be deployed on the ground.

What kind of commander in chief unleashes America's firepower, then immediately blunts it by informing the enemy that we are not really all that committed to this campaign. So, he tells them: Just hang on and you might survive?

That flimsy doctrine didn't work for Jimmy Carter and it won't work now for Mr. Obama.

Even more alarming is that Mr. Obama was clearly trying to send voters here in America a political message that he will somehow not put troops into harm's way. He's not embarking, he tells us, on a new war venture with unacceptable body counts.

The appalling disrespect Mr. Obama has for the military is such that he doesn't even seem to have the slightest inkling the harm's way he sends our Navy into, even on a mission like this.

And what now that — just three days in — we indeed do have troops on the ground, rescuing downed fighter pilots?

The only thing worse than a fuzzy mission is a fuzzy mission carried out in service of a fuzzy strategy.

Ask the new leaders of the free world — you know, the French and so on — what the objective here is and how we plan to get there, and you wind up with something more like an impressionist painting than a military strategy.

Col. Moammar Gadhafi is NOT a target, they say — even though he is the whole reason we have gotten involved.

So, yes, he IS the target.

And then there is Barack Obama, the humble internationalist, who prefers to just say he wishes Col. Gadhafi would step down. Isn't it strange that a guy so famous for his seamless arrogance is capable of such meekness when it comes to the riches and treasures that have been built over centuries by better men before him and jealously guarded by generations?

Perhaps, then, it is not humility we see in Mr. Obama. Maybe it is such epic arrogance that he actually considers himself so far above all those who came before him and the temples to freedom they built.

• Charles Hurt's column appears Wednesdays. He may be reached at charleshurt@live.com


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 03:28:04 AM
"Even his most uninspired and uninspiring predecessors at least understood they had inherited an American legacy that was the gleaming beacon of freedom and humanity around the globe".

I think im gonna puke.

Remember this quote:

patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 24, 2011, 04:45:17 AM
333386 and the rest of them it's not about the war they could care less,it's about obama, plan and simple. Any thing to make him appear to look bad they will post, shit 333386 will post anything from any source alot of it with half truths or no truth at all, he don't check any of the facts because he doesn't care,as long as it appears to make obama look bad


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 05:07:20 AM
I think he has a man-crush


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 05:38:40 AM
How many threads do you plan on having a conversation with yourself in? It doesn't get any sadder than that.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 05:40:04 AM
How many threads do you plan on having a conversation with yourself in? It doesn't get any sadder than that.

Sadder than you and your conservatives friend sucking each others dick all the time in here?

I told you have the admin trace the ip if its that important an issue for you low-life


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 05:47:10 AM
Sadder than you and your conservatives friend sucking each others dick all the time in here?

I told you have the admin trace the ip if its that important an issue for you low-life

Jobless, welfare-leech meltdown!

Not a conservative. But I'm certainly not an uneducated, semi-literate, Obama ball licker like yourself. I thought this was your conservative gimmick, though. Why are you attacking them when you've crafted this gimmick to agree with a lot of the conservative's posts?

You couldn't be any more pathetic. Really.  :D :D :D :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 24, 2011, 06:18:41 AM
Im an independent so of course i vote with conservatives on some issues.

Unlike you i have a fully functioning brain able to make decisions and opinions myself.

And most important i have big enough cujones to disagree with the majority in here when i think its appropriate.

Unlike you who just logges on to get confirmation from people that your opinions are the right ones.

Seems to me you have a sad life and this forum is your only comfort. Pretty sad but if thats keeping you up who am i to judge then


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 24, 2011, 06:26:54 AM
333386 and the rest of them it's not about the war they could care less,it's about obama, plan and simple. Any thing to make him appear to look bad they will post, shit 333386 will post anything from any source alot of it with half truths or no truth at all, he don't check any of the facts because he doesn't care,as long as it appears to make obama look bad

Obama doesn't need any help looking like moron in this situation. You want to blame someone for how this whole thing looks blame the POTUS. He explained nothing, showed no immanent threat to the US or is assets, has every asshat in his administration commenting about it, even AG Holder. Please tell me what the AG has to do with foreign policy. Sure Gaddafi's a bad guy, but what do we know about these rebels? Not a damn thing.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 08:23:13 AM
Im an independent so of course i vote with conservatives on some issues.

Unlike you i have a fully functioning brain able to make decisions and opinions myself.

And most important i have big enough cujones to disagree with the majority in here when i think its appropriate.

Unlike you who just logges on to get confirmation from people that your opinions are the right ones.

Seems to me you have a sad life and this forum is your only comfort. Pretty sad but if thats keeping you up who am i to judge then

Gimmick rage, excuse-making and lying. You got it all, BlackenWhorkMonsVenusPro gnosticatorCohibaNeuroto xin (just look at how pathetic you are)!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 08:24:26 AM
Gallup Poll: Libya Has Lowest Approval Rating Ever For U.S. Military Action

PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup poll conducted Monday finds more Americans approving than disapproving of the military action against Libya by the United States and other countries.

The March 21 poll was conducted just days after the United States joined other countries in conducting airstrikes against Libya to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone. The U.N. passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in response to reports that Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi had attacked Libyan forces opposed to his government.

The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades.

Americans showed the highest level of support for the 2001 military action in Afghanistan that was a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Americans also widely supported U.S. airstrikes against Iraq in 1993 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylyl-nkftegtay5fyfkzpq.gif)


Hahahahaha! #winning!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 08:47:33 AM
Wag the water dog.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 11:19:23 AM
Reuters Poll: Only 17% of Americans think Obama is a strong military leader

(MSNBC)- Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.

Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as indecisive in military matters.

Obama was widely criticized in 2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Critics called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful deliberation. He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.

But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the U.S.-led mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for U.S. forces.

If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess, mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Problem is that it looks so hackneyed and incoherent as it is.  Secondly - there are dozens of other sites about to burst as we are alreadt spread too thin.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
chatterbox
Birth of a Washington Word
When warfare gets "kinetic."
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2002, at 6:40 PM ET


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retronym" is a word coined by Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign director, to delineate previously unnecessary distinctions. Examples include "acoustic guitar," "analog watch," "natural turf," "two-parent family," and "offline publication." Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War, introduces a new Washington retronym: "kinetic" warfare. From page 150:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going "kinetic," as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way? The public was patient, at least it seemed patient, but everyone wanted action. A full military action—air and boots—would be the essential demonstration of seriousness—to bin Laden, America, and the world.

In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic." (Why not "latent"? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether "the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare," Donald Rumsfeld answered, "Yes!" (Rumsfeld uses the words "kinetic" and "non-kinetic" all the time.)

The recent war in Afghanistan demonstrates that when the chips are down, we still find it necessary to go kinetic. Indeed, for all its novel methods of non-kinetic warfare, today's military is much more deadly than it ever was before. For the foreseeable future, civilians and at least a few soldiers will continue to be killed in war. "Kinetic" seems an objectionable way to describe this reality from the point of view of both doves and hawks. To those who deplore or resist going to war, "kinetic" is unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics and aesthetic ones traceable to the word's frequent use by connoisseurs of modern dance. To those who celebrate war (or at least find it grimly necessary), "kinetic" fails to evoke the manly virtues of strength, fierceness, and bravery. Imagine Rudyard Kipling penning the lines, "For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'/ But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the U.K goes kinetic." Is it too late to remove this word from the Washington lexicon? Chatterbox suggests a substitute: "fighting."

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. He can be reached at thecustomer@slate.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2074367




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 24, 2011, 11:29:56 AM
OIL!!!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 24, 2011, 12:31:14 PM
 He does lead 3 wars! What have you done for the peace in the world?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 24, 2011, 12:39:07 PM
 Libya is in danger! Chip 'n' Dale run to help!
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 24, 2011, 12:43:39 PM
 No comment


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 01:15:27 PM
www.drudgereport.com


Carney holds first post-trip briefing off camera: 'I didn't have any white or blue shirts'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libya Op: Lowest Approval of Any GALLUP-Polled Military Action...

CLINTON SUMMONED TO CAPITOL HILL TO EXPLAIN...

Mission 'clouded by confusion'...

White House: Days, not weeks...

France: Weeks, not days...

Dem Rep: Obama told me US would be 'in and out' of Libya...

Pentagon: US likely to continue combat in Libya...

OBAMA: No ground troops, no matter what happens...

2,200 ground troops head to Libya...



KEEPING HIS PEACE PRIZE...

Libya says nearly 100 civilians died in air strikes...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 24, 2011, 04:22:43 PM
Obama doesn't need any help looking like moron in this situation. You want to blame someone for how this whole thing looks blame the POTUS. He explained nothing, showed no immanent threat to the US or is assets, has every asshat in his administration commenting about it, even AG Holder. Please tell me what the AG has to do with foreign policy. Sure Gaddafi's a bad guy, but what do we know about these rebels? Not a damn thing.

First of all no country is an "imminent threat" to the United States.....and he said we are doing this to protect citizens from being slaughtered...and it really doesn't matter what he says....all wars are unpredictable and you have to be flexible.....and the truth is, NO WAR has a real exit strategy...we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.....EXIT STRATEGIES really mean nothing and never pan out in the end anyway


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 24, 2011, 04:24:04 PM
He does lead 3 wars! What have you done for the peace in the world?

what have the Russians done for peace in the world???............NOTHING


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 24, 2011, 04:45:38 PM
First of all no country is an "imminent threat" to the United States.....and he said we are doing this to protect citizens from being slaughtered...and it really doesn't matter what he says....all wars are unpredictable and you have to be flexible.....and the truth is, NO WAR has a real exit strategy...we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.....EXIT STRATEGIES really mean nothing and never pan out in the end anyway

You don't have the slightest fucking idea who the rebels are, and if they are even Libyans. And yes it does matter what the POTUS say, seeing as how he is the command in chief of the armed forces. Every war has an exit strategy it's called victory, not fucking nation building or winning the hearts and minds horse shit. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan because winning might make the losers feel bad and we wouldn't want that ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 24, 2011, 04:47:53 PM
This is another WTF from obama admn.  Wagging the water dog.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on March 24, 2011, 05:01:24 PM
You don't have the slightest fucking idea who the rebels are, and if they are even Libyans. And yes it does matter what the POTUS say, seeing as how he is the command in chief of the armed forces. Every war has an exit strategy it's called victory, not fucking nation building or winning the hearts and minds horse shit. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan because winning might make the losers feel bad and we wouldn't want that ::)




Stop using logic.  You might offend him.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 24, 2011, 10:01:01 PM
what have the Russians done for peace in the world???............NOTHING

 You're an ugly, arrogant american mofo! Your turn mofo?

 Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станислав Евграфович Петров) (born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who deviated from standard Soviet protocol by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1] This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies.

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 25, 2011, 04:51:54 AM
Gimmick rage, excuse-making and lying. You got it all, BlackenWhorkMonsVenusPro gnosticatorCohibaNeuroto xin (just look at how pathetic you are)!  ::)

Do you seriously believe im behind all those account? Im flattered


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 04:58:15 AM
Op-Ed: Obama Hiding True Motives for War From American People
Fox Nation ^ | March 22, 2011 | Stanley Kurtz




Obama doesn’t tell you what he’s thinking. He keeps his motives to himself. Cherished long-term ideological goals are advanced as pragmatic fixes to concrete problems in the present. Now we’re seeing the familiar domestic pattern in foreign policy as well.


Few Americans realize that Obama has had a longstanding interest in multilateral efforts to combat war crimes and genocide. Obama would like to see a more constraining international legal regime on war crimes, even at the cost of national sovereignty, not to mention the blood and treasure of the countries doing the enforcing. In general, Obama has said little about his larger foreign policy goals.

...In 2005, Obama contacted Power after reading her book on genocide. There followed a long conversation, after which Power left Harvard to work for Obama, quic‘kly emerging as his senior foreign policy advisor.



...Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displaceQaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds. Power’s agenda would explain why Obama acted when he acted, and why the public rationale for action has not included regime change.


Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 06:38:12 AM
Mar 24, 4:21 PM EDT


Analysis: Libya shows US policy inconsistencies

By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S.-led attacks against an autocrat in oil-rich Libya have opened the Obama administration to questions about why it's holding back from more robust support for opposition forces challenging other dictators.

What is the difference, some have asked, between the situation in Libya and the uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria and even sub-Saharan African nations such as Ivory Coast?

The bombardment by Washington and its allies of the air defenses and troops of Moammar Gadhafi, unquestionably an international pariah, was motivated by a desire to prevent a possible slaughter of rebels fighting to end his erratic 42-year reign. There's hope among U.S. and allied leaders that the anti-government forces will move toward democracy as they appear to be after revolutions in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia

But the military intervention begs many questions and illustrates once again the stark inconsistences in an American foreign policy that tries to balance democratic ideals against pragmatic national interests.

The easy but unsatisfactory answer is that the United Nations called for action against Libya as did that nation's neighbors in the Arab League. And the U.N. also is already deeply involved in Ivory Coast where the internationally recognized president is calling for U.N. peacekeepers to use force against incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo, who has attacked civilians and refuses to cede power.

Mark Quarterman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama was engaged in the "art of the possible" in Libya.

"The ability to reach a consensus on action in Libya, in the face of potential crimes against humanity," he said in a recent commentary, "is not illegitimate simply because a similar consensus cannot be reached in other circumstances."

Nicholas R. Burns, a Harvard professor who was in the upper reaches of State Department decision making for much of the past two decades, said Obama had no choice.

"With Benghazi being overrun by Gadhafi, the president had to use force," he said. "It has been done effectively. It saved those people and gave new life to the rebels."

But why not act on behalf of anti-government forces that have come under attack as they challenge entrenched autocracies in Yemen and Bahrain?

"We can't be antiseptically consistent," Burns said. "The United States has huge national security interests in those countries."

And that's where the pragmatism over national security interests comes in.

The U.S. 5th Fleet base in Bahrain allows the United States to project military power in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. In Yemen, the long-time president works closely with Washington in the fight against al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula.

Also at work are fears of Iran - in Bahrain and its mentor and neighbor Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer. The monarchies in both countries are deeply distrustful of their Shiite Muslim populations who are suspected of being under the influence of Iran. Arab nations dread an expansion of Iran's outsized political and military ambitions in the Gulf.

Burns, whose State Department tenure included the administration of President Bill Clinton, also recalls that many of the foreign policy decision makers now working for Obama have deep and troubling memories of the mass killings in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo. Among that group are the former first lady and now Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, a key Africa adviser for President Clinton.

History argues forcefully that U.S. intervention could have prevented the Rwanda massacres and limited the carnage in the Balkans. That would explain pressure Obama reportedly felt from both Hillary Clinton and Rice as the U.N. resolution for a no-fly zone and other action in Libyan started coming together last week.

Beyond that, the American relationship with Israel, Washington's closest Mideast ally, always hangs above U.S. decision making in the region. Any final peace agreement among the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors depends heavily on both Saudi Arabia and Syria. Saudi endorsement of any peace plan would carry huge weight with other Arab nations.

That's especially important after the revolution that swept Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power. He had served as a U.S. proxy in attempts to arrange peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the wider Middle East.

What's more, Syria is still seen - despite its close ties with Iran and its support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon - as a potential peace partner. It is desperate to win back control of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. That reality keeps Damascus in play as one of the Arab rejectionist states that could be coaxed into a peace deal.

Obama has worked assiduously since taking office to repair the U.S. image in the world, an image that was badly damaged by Washington's invasion of Iraq and its long war to defeat the Taliban militancy and its al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and in the border region with Pakistan.

As he stepped into the Libyan conflict in a major way, Obama was eager to keep America's profile as low as possible. He has routinely said, as has Clinton, that the operation in Libya would soon be ceded to NATO control. The White House has no interest in attaching itself deeply to yet another conflict in a Muslim country.

That's easier said than done.

----

EDITOR'S NOTE - Steven R. Hurst has covered foreign affairs for more than 30 years.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 25, 2011, 07:05:53 AM
You're an ugly, arrogant american mofo! Your turn mofo?

 Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станислав Евграфович Петров) (born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who deviated from standard Soviet protocol by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1] This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies.

 

why is it that Russia never contributes anything to world peace...they don't send peacekeepers anywhere...they constantly veto things that the rest of the world wants to do in the security council....
They are no help in Iraq. Iran , the middle east,

no one cares of about Russia or Russian opinion....they are irrelevant in the world..all they have are nuclear weapons and that doesn't scare anyone any more....Russia is impotent and irrelevant...china has more power than Russia


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 25, 2011, 07:57:07 AM
why is it that Russia never contributes anything to world peace...they don't send peacekeepers anywhere...they constantly veto things that the rest of the world wants to do in the security council....
They are no help in Iraq. Iran , the middle east,

no one cares of about Russia or Russian opinion....they are irrelevant in the world..all they have are nuclear weapons and that doesn't scare anyone any more....Russia is impotent and irrelevant...china has more power than Russia

 There is Russia and the rest of the world as you put it, I like it!

 Russia is irrelevant in the world? Are you typing it me from Zimbabwe? Can't imagine some monkey would teach me anything. NATO (US, GB, France etc etc) as the military block can do anything to the countries like Libya, no body can't touch Russia. No body!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 25, 2011, 08:48:05 AM
Libya: At least one rebel commander fought American forces in Afghanistan, sent jihadis to Iraq

(PJM) — Shortly after unrest broke out in eastern Libya in mid-February, reports emerged that an “Islamic Emirate” had been declared in the eastern Libyan town of Darnah and that, furthermore, the alleged head of that Emirate, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was a former detainee at the American prison camp in Guantánamo. The reports, which originated from Libyan government sources, were largely ignored or dismissed in the Western media.

Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.

“I have never been at Guantánamo,” al-Hasadi explained to Il Sole 24 Ore. “I was captured in 2002 in Peshawar in Pakistan, while I was returning from Afghanistan where I fought against the foreign invasion. I was turned over to the Americans, detained for a few months in Islamabad, then turned over to Libya and released from prison in 2008.”

Al-Hasadi’s account is largely confirmed by investigations conducted by Praveen Swami, the diplomatic editor of the British daily The Telegraph. Swami originally wrote about al-Hasadi’s background in the Afghan jihad in a March 21 column. In response to a query from the present author, Swami was able to obtain confirmation of al-Hasadi’s arrest and transfer to Libya from what he describes as a “senior source” in the Afghan government.

According to a separate UK intelligence source contacted by Swami, al-Hasadi was released by the Libyan government as part of a deal that was struck with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIGF). The LIGF has long opposed the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rebel-commander-in-libya-fought-against-u-s-in-afghanistan/?singlepage=true


Steller work, tovarich Obama!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 08:48:33 AM
Sri Lankan Muslims beat and stamp on effigy
www.drudgereport.com



Sri Lankan Muslims beat and stamp on an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama during a protest rally against the allied forces' air strike in Libya, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Friday, March 25, 2011. NATO's military staff is drawing up detailed plans to assume full control of the no-fly zone over Libya in coming days, after member nations agreed to take on the operation from a U.S.-led coalition.… Read more »
(AP Photo/Chamila Karunarathne)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Libya: At least one rebel commander fought American forces in Afghanistan, sent jihadis to Iraq

(PJM) — Shortly after unrest broke out in eastern Libya in mid-February, reports emerged that an “Islamic Emirate” had been declared in the eastern Libyan town of Darnah and that, furthermore, the alleged head of that Emirate, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was a former detainee at the American prison camp in Guantánamo. The reports, which originated from Libyan government sources, were largely ignored or dismissed in the Western media.

Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.

“I have never been at Guantánamo,” al-Hasadi explained to Il Sole 24 Ore. “I was captured in 2002 in Peshawar in Pakistan, while I was returning from Afghanistan where I fought against the foreign invasion. I was turned over to the Americans, detained for a few months in Islamabad, then turned over to Libya and released from prison in 2008.”

Al-Hasadi’s account is largely confirmed by investigations conducted by Praveen Swami, the diplomatic editor of the British daily The Telegraph. Swami originally wrote about al-Hasadi’s background in the Afghan jihad in a March 21 column. In response to a query from the present author, Swami was able to obtain confirmation of al-Hasadi’s arrest and transfer to Libya from what he describes as a “senior source” in the Afghan government.

According to a separate UK intelligence source contacted by Swami, al-Hasadi was released by the Libyan government as part of a deal that was struck with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIGF). The LIGF has long opposed the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rebel-commander-in-libya-fought-against-u-s-in-afghanistan/?singlepage=true


Steller work, tovarich Obama!



WWWTTTFFF?   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 25, 2011, 08:52:12 AM


WWWTTTFFF?   

Cue the 240 spin.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 11:49:41 AM
US May Supply Gaddafi Rebels With Weapons
SkyNews ^ | March 25, 2011 | Robert Nisbet




Western diplomatic sources have confirmed to Sky News that the US is considering the legality of arming the Libyan rebels.


One of the unintended consequences of United Nations' Resolution 1970 was to starve the rebels of the weapons they would need to take on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.


It requires all UN members to "immediately take the necessary measures" to prevent the supply or sale of weapons to the Libyan government - with no exemption for anti-Gaddafi forces.


But Sky News now understands the US is looking at a legal framework to allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels, if they can prove they need them to defend themselves from attack.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 12:27:46 PM
Canadian general to take NATO command of Libya
 ..– Fri Mar 25, 1:11 pm ET



TORONTO – A Canadian general will take over command of the NATO mission in Libya.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Friday that Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard has been designated to lead the alliance's military campaign in Libya.

Bouchard is stationed in Naples, Italy, at the Allied Joint Force Command.

Bouchard's recent job was deputy commander of NORAD, reporting to an American general.

"He will be commander of the NATO operations, yet to be fully defined NATO operations," MacKay said.

The international coalition confronting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has agreed to put NATO in charge of enforcing the no-fly zone. It was still trying to hammer out a deal to relieve U.S. forces of command of all military operations in the country.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have both said that American command of the operations would last only a few days.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 25, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
I fail to see what difference it makes who in NATO is in command, if US jet or troops are involved. Just another smoke and mirrors side show


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on March 25, 2011, 01:08:19 PM
why is it that Russia never contributes anything to world peace...they don't send peacekeepers anywhere...they constantly veto things that the rest of the world wants to do in the security council....
They are no help in Iraq. Iran , the middle east,

no one cares of about Russia or Russian opinion....they are irrelevant in the world..all they have are nuclear weapons and that doesn't scare anyone any more....Russia is impotent and irrelevant...china has more power than Russia

BOOM!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 25, 2011, 01:23:51 PM
Cue the 240 spin.  ::)

i could do it for fun, but yall will accuse me of actually believing it.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 25, 2011, 05:32:23 PM
Sri Lankan Muslims beat and stamp on effigy
www.drudgereport.com



Sri Lankan Muslims beat and stamp on an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama during a protest rally against the allied forces' air strike in Libya, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Friday, March 25, 2011. NATO's military staff is drawing up detailed plans to assume full control of the no-fly zone over Libya in coming days, after member nations agreed to take on the operation from a U.S.-led coalition.… Read more »
(AP Photo/Chamila Karunarathne)

well now you see why Obama has been so low key about this.....those people won't understand....thank you for showing this 3333


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 05:35:43 PM
NATO deal leaves U.S. still commanding Libya strikes

Thu, Mar 24 2011Analysis & OpinionLibya and selective US intervention
Reuters/Ipsos poll: Obama seen as cautious commander-in-chief
Related TopicsWorld »
Politics »
Libya »
 
WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:32pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A NATO decision to take charge of a no-fly zone over Libya does not include conducting air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces, a mission that will remain in U.S. hands until a new command deal is reached, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney said on Friday.

Gortney, chief of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, said the U.N.-backed operation against Gaddafi's forces involved three different missions -- an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and protecting Libyan civilians.

He said the U.S. military initially assumed command of all three missions in order to quickly implement the U.N. resolution authorizing the action. But President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials made it clear the United States would hand off control of the operation as soon as feasible.

The Western alliance already has assumed control of the arms embargo, led by an Italian vice admiral, and has agreed to take over the no-fly zone in coming days, Gortney said. But there is disagreement over the third mission, which includes air strikes to stop Gaddafi from attacking his opponents.

"This mission will remain in U.S. hands until such time as the coalition is ready to assume it," Gortney told a briefing at the Pentagon. "My expectation is that it, too, could fall under NATO. But ... these are decisions and discussions ongoing at the political level and I just would not speculate right now where it will end up."

Gortney said the coalition had fired 16 Tomahawk missiles and flown 153 air sorties in the past 24 hours, 96 of which were attack-related and not exclusively patrolling the no-fly zone.

"Most of these strikes were not pre-planned but rather targets of opportunity, meaning that we responded to threats as they were occurring or that a new target presented itself as vulnerable and important to hit at that time," he said.

The strikes were directed at command and control facilities and Scud missile garrisons around Tripoli as well as air defense systems in the south. They also targeted Libyan tanks preparing to fire on the city of Ajdabiya, he said.

Coalition forces were mainly using precision weapons -- Tomahawk cruise missiles or laser-guided or GPS-guided bombs. Responding to a question, Gortney said he was unaware of any use of depleted uranium munitions in Libya.

Depleted uranium munitions are effective at penetrating armor because of their high density, but they are controversial because they raise long-term health concerns.

Gortney noted reports that Gaddafi was arming civilian volunteers to fight his opponents and said coalition attacks were eroding his ability to exercise command of his forces.

"Gaddafi has virtually no air defense left to him and a diminishing ability to command and sustain his forces on the ground," Gortney said.

"His air force cannot fly. His warships are staying in port. His ammunition stores are being destroyed. Communication towers are being toppled and his command bunkers are being rendered useless."

(Editing by Christopher Wilson)



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 25, 2011, 06:44:10 PM
'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya
news.com.au ^




'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya

From correspondents in Paris From: AFP March 26, 2011 1:03PM

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 guy to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

"This is very serious. AQIM is becoming a genuine army, the best equipped in the region," he said.

His claim was echoed by officials in other countries in the region who said that they were worried that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) might have acquired "heavy weapons", thanks to the insurrection.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 06:23:08 AM
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

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



Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
 
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against 'the foreign invasion' in Afghanistan Photo: AFP By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham 5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Related Articles
RAF Tornado crew describe raid on Libya
25 Mar 2011
RAF Tornado jets target Libyan tanks in Ajdabiya
25 Mar 2011
Libya: RAF Tornado jets launch strikes on Gaddafi forces
25 Mar 2011
On board Tornado jet on Libya mission
25 Mar 2011
Canadian CF-18 jet bombs Libyan weapons depot
25 Mar 2011
Libya: Nato takes over no-fly zone
25 Mar 2011


Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: theonlyone on March 26, 2011, 06:33:17 AM
Military ground operations qualify as occupying Libya - Russia NATO envoy



Any foreign military ground operations in Libya will be considered as occupying the country, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday.

"Holding [military] ground operations will be qualified as occupying Libya and that directly contradicts the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council," Rogozin told RIA Novosti.

The UN Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over Libya on March 17, also permitting "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebel-held towns.

The operation to enforce the no-fly zone, codenamed Odyssey Dawn, is being conducted jointly by 13 states, including the United States, Britain and France.

Rogozin said that on March 29, the Russian-NATO Council will meet in order "to confirm the limits that the UN Security Council has placed on the participants of the conflict."

Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over the North African country and fired 162 Tomahawk missiles in the UN-mandated mission. Libyan state media outlets have reported that dozens of people have been killed by the airstrikes.


Any foreign military ground operations in Libya will be considered as occupying the country, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday.

"Holding [military] ground operations will be qualified as occupying Libya and that directly contradicts the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council," Rogozin told RIA Novosti.

The UN Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over Libya on March 17, also permitting "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebel-held towns.

The operation to enforce the no-fly zone, codenamed Odyssey Dawn, is being conducted jointly by 13 states, including the United States, Britain and France.

Rogozin said that on March 29, the Russian-NATO Council will meet in order "to confirm the limits that the UN Security Council has placed on the participants of the conflict."

Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over the North African country and fired 162 Tomahawk missiles in the UN-mandated mission. Libyan state media outlets have reported that dozens of people have been killed by the airstrikes.


Any foreign military ground operations in Libya will be considered as occupying the country, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday.

"Holding [military] ground operations will be qualified as occupying Libya and that directly contradicts the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council," Rogozin told RIA Novosti.

The UN Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over Libya on March 17, also permitting "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebel-held towns.

The operation to enforce the no-fly zone, codenamed Odyssey Dawn, is being conducted jointly by 13 states, including the United States, Britain and France.

Rogozin said that on March 29, the Russian-NATO Council will meet in order "to confirm the limits that the UN Security Council has placed on the participants of the conflict."

Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over the North African country and fired 162 Tomahawk missiles in the UN-mandated mission. Libyan state media outlets have reported that dozens of people have been killed by the airstrikes.
 source - yande.ru


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 06:49:30 AM
Europe's intervention in Libya
Who is in charge here?
Mar 25th 2011, 14:26


http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/03/europes_intervention_libya


________________________ ____



.WHAT an odd way to run a war. Nearly a week into the allied air operations in Libya, the command structure remains murky. True, the coalition headed by America, France and Britain had to act in haste, and has had to build a command structure on the fly.

So after much intense diplomacy, NATO has agreed to take over the running of the no-fly zone over Libya. Yet the coalition will remain in charge of operations to attack Libyan forces on the ground. “At this moment, there will still be a coalition operation and a NATO operation,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general.

This hybrid arrangement may be necessary to hold together those who are more muscular in terms of attacking Libyan forces on the ground, and those who want to stick to patrolling the airspace and waters. But it could prove awkward over time. It is reminiscent of the unhappy command-and-control arrangement that lasted for years in Afghanistan, whereby the NATO-led ISAF mission was responsible for peacekeeping and stabilisation while, alongside it, an American-led coalition ran the counter-terrorist mission, known as Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

This was often an uncomfortable arrangement, causing much resentment, as special forces would sometimes hit targets without informing NATO commanders supposedly in charge of a particular area of operations. European commanders complained privately about gung-ho Americans while Americans seethed about spineless Europeans. Eventually the matter was resolved. America boosted its forces and took overall command of ISAF, bringing OEF under a single commander.

The situation may not be as bad in Libya; NATO and the current coalition may be a distinction without a difference. The NATO commander who will be in charge of the no-fly zone, Admiral Samuel Locklear, is the same naval officer who, with an American hat, is already running the coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn. Moreover, the British say they expect all aspects of the operation to come under NATO command in the coming days.

The debate about the degree to which NATO controls the operation is odd. For the Americans, bringing NATO in means handing over responsibility to Europeans; for Europeans, NATO means America. France has resisted giving NATO too prominent a role for fear that it will turn off Arab allies; Italy says the NATO label would be an attraction because it would put a straitjacket on the gung-ho French.

While military commanders are accustomed to operating with different NATO and national hats, the politics may not be resolved until one of two things happens: either the coalition stops hitting ground targets to make the operation more palatable to Turkey, or Turkey accepts that bombing tanks and artillery firing on Libyan towns is, in fact, a necessary part of protecting civilians.

This leads back to the uncomfortable questions that have dogged the intervention: what are the aims and limits of the operation? And how long will it go on for? Speaking at a summit of European leaders in Brussels, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said last night the coalition had stopped a repetition of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. That alone justifies taking action, but it does not answer how the operation will end.

As matters stand, the coalition has resorted to enough force to stop Colonel Qaddafi from crushing the revolt, but not yet enough to remove him from power. At this intensity, the intervention may well lead to a frozen conflict: think of Iraq under sanctions, no-fly zones and occasional air strikes for 12 years. The trouble with such a prospect is that Colonel Qaddafi could simply outlast the coalition’s will to continue policing Libya; as with Iraq, sanctions have a tendency over time to weaken those imposing them.

Kurt Volker, a former American ambassador to NATO, offers a maximalist interpretation of the UN resolution authorising the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. “The sooner the West adopts a clear position that the UN’s humanitarian goals can only be achieved by Qaddafi’s removal from power, the sooner the crisis can begin to come to an end.”

Nobody is yet prepared to adopt such a position. Indeed, President Sarkozy last night offered a more limited set of objectives. The video of his press conference is here. To sum up, he said the coalition’s job was to protect civilians from the threat of attack. Removing Colonel Qaddafi was a job for Libyans themselves. His condition for ending the attacks was for Libyan forces to withdraw to barracks and to stop besieging Libyan towns, not the departure of the colonel.

He offered a reason for sticking to a fairly narrow interpretation of the resolution: the need to maintain Arab support. As well as a couple of Qatari planes, the UAE has now confirmed it will send 12 jets to help out. Their rules of engagement are unclear. But all this is precious help, politically if not militarily.

In one of his more thoughtful moments, Mr Sarkozy said the prize was not just the fate of the Libyan people, but winning back the trust of Arab people as they seek to free themselves of autocratic rulers. He told Syria and Yemen, among others, that he will maintain the same position: Europeans would stand on the side of peaceful demonstrators against those who fire on their own people.

One can argue that Mr Sarkozy’s formulation does not resolve the underlying worries about a stalemate. If Colonel Qaddafi really stopped resorting to force he would be finished anyway. So one should not expect him to stop entirely, though he might change tactics—for example putting his forces inside towns rather than around them to make it harder to hit them without causing civilian casualties. The French high command is already giving notice that operations could go on for weeks rather than days. It may be much longer.

One hope is that the regime will break up internally. Hillary Clinton has spoken of senior regime figures putting out feelers about possible exile, and Mr Sarkozy publicly encouraged defections, saying those who dissociated themselves from Colonel Qaddafi would have a place in a future Libya. David Cameron, the British prime minister, warned regime loyalists that every day they continued to support Colonel Qaddafi would bring them closer to prosecution for war crimes in the Internatiional Criminal Court. He told them:

Don't obey his orders. Walk away from your tanks. Leave the command-and-control that you are doing. Give up on this regime because it should be over for him and his henchmen.
But given the experience of Iraq, it is hard to put much faith in this outcome; Saddam was only removed by a full-blown invasion.

Can one increase pressure on the colonel to hasten his demise? French officials are speaking of creating large zones of humanitarian protections, defended by the United Nations. Another is to move beyond merely protecting Mr Qaddafi’s opponents to strengthening them: beginning with humanitarian aid, and perhaps increasing the rebels' political profile (France would like the oppostion "national council" in Benghazi to be represented at next week’s conference on Libya in London). Should one train and arm them too? “It is a good question,” says one senior French source, nodding his head.

One problem with this strategy is that there is currently an arms embargo on Libya. A new UN resolution would be needed, and one could expect intense resistance to the notion of the world arming one side of a civil war. The danger is of arming the wrong sort of people—the opposition national council includes prominent former members of Colonel Qaddafi’s regime. Another risk is of a future “blowback” of the sort that took place in Afghanistan, where some of the anti-Soviet Arab fighters that were supported by the West and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s went on to become the core of al-Qaeda.

Mr Sarkozy said the decision to take action in Libya was hard to take. Deciding how to end it may prove even more difficult.



________________________ ______________________




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 26, 2011, 06:49:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2S2J4jXATk

 ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 07:46:43 AM
Ground Operation In Libya Could Start In April - Russian Intelligence
TREND ^ | March 26, 2011





The international coalition force is planning a ground operation in Libya that could start in late April, a high-ranking Russian intelligence service source said on Friday, RIA Novosti reported.

"Information coming via different channels shows that NATO countries, with the active participation of Britain and the United States, are developing a plan for a ground operation on Libyan territory," he said.

"From all indications, a ground operation will be launched if the alliance fails to force the Gaddafi regime to capitulate with air strikes and missile attacks."

If the events in Libya follow this scenario, the ground operation could start "in late April-early May," he added.


(Excerpt) Read more at en.trend.az ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 08:23:44 AM
Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won't kill Qadhafi
Politico ^ | 3/25/11 | Johnathan Alan/Nate Sherman





President Barack Obama told congressional leaders there are no plans to use the U.S. military to assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi — despite the administration’s policy of seeking regime change in the North African country — according to sources familiar with a Friday White House Situation Room briefing.

“There was a discussion of how we have other ways of regime change,” Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told POLITICO. “It’s not our role to do anything at this point from a kinetic point of view. It is our goal for regime change, but we’re not going to do it from a kinetic point of view.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51962.html#ixzz1HeQr9UgO


(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 26, 2011, 10:32:01 AM
Ground Operation In Libya Could Start In April - Russian Intelligence
TREND ^ | March 26, 2011





The international coalition force is planning a ground operation in Libya that could start in late April, a high-ranking Russian intelligence service source said on Friday, RIA Novosti reported.

"Information coming via different channels shows that NATO countries, with the active participation of Britain and the United States, are developing a plan for a ground operation on Libyan territory," he said.

"From all indications, a ground operation will be launched if the alliance fails to force the Gaddafi regime to capitulate with air strikes and missile attacks."

If the events in Libya follow this scenario, the ground operation could start "in late April-early May," he added.


(Excerpt) Read more at en.trend.az ...


If you trust anything the Russians say you are truly out of your mind....you are desperate for any negative info you can find 3333


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 10:33:59 AM
As compared to who?  The lying, grifting, thieving, decitful, dishonest, communist, incompetent, stealing, traitor in 1600 Pa Ave. we have now? 



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 26, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
so we are arming the terrorist groups we'll be fighting in libya in 2015 or 2020, aren't we?


Kinda easy to see that.  We've done that before in afghanistan.  Not a partisan thing either - presidents from both parties arm rebel groups as it fits their goals - then they set up a war for the next guy to profit from.  President Ryan or President Christie will be fighting another war/skirmish in Libya in 5 or 10 years, and we'll all act surprised!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 26, 2011, 10:47:02 AM
As compared to who?  The lying, grifting, thieving, decitful, dishonest, communist, incompetent, stealing, traitor in 1600 Pa Ave. we have now? 


stealing??????????....you've truly lost it


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 26, 2011, 10:54:19 AM
stealing??????????....you've truly lost it

Obama is no different to me than looter dude in katrina.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:22:44 AM
Obama Joins Forces With al-Qaida – Proving That George Orwell Was Right On The Target
AIPNews.com ^ | March 27, 2011 | John L. Work





 

Orwell - Obama Proves Him Right

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four introduced and defined Newspeak, a mind-bending lexicon that includes a term worth mulling over today, as the armed forces of the United States wage war in partnership with al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood against Moammar Ghadafi’s regime in Libya.  The term to which I’m referring – doublethink – can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:


 dou•ble•think (‘d&-b&l-”thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.




 Doublethink is a dizzying concept. 


In her syndicated column last week, Diana West examined America’s de facto cross-over to the side of them who wish to destroy us and replace our Constitutional system of governance with sharia (Muslim law).  And this changing of sides happened so quickly that if one blinked his eyes, the entire picture of the War was altered in a heartbeat – by a President who engineered the shift to aid our enemies without the slightest  regard (again) for the constraints of the Constitution.  And as Diana West wrote – Congress is “flat-lined.”  Impotent.


 Here’s a story from the UK Telegraph, wherein the leader of the “revolt” in Libya, jihadist Abdel-Hakin al-Hasidi, shared his words of wisdom:


 “In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”…”


Indeed.  And our Naval aviators are now flying sortees in support of this man’s jihadist army.  But let’s go on, shall we:


“…Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”…”


You see, good Muslims wage jihad against Infidels (that’s us, folks).  Terrorists kill innocent people.  Infidels are not considered to be innocent within the doctrine of Islam.  And the “invaders” to which al-Hasidi alludes are – the Armed Forces of the United States of America.  Wait. There’s more:


“…Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…”


What the Telegraph isn’t telling you here is that word has it that al-Hasidi was one of the Gitmo detainees who was released from custody as a non-threat.


So, let’s look at this Libyan civil war situation in an Orwellian doublethink context:


1)      Al-Qaida operatives killed nearly 3,000 Americans on Spetember 11, 2001, plunging the United States into this endless war.


2)      Al-Qaida is a first-generation spawn of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood wants the caliphate restored and sharia imposed throughout the entire world.


3)      America is at war with al-Qaida and “radical Islam”.


4)      Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood are bad.


5)      Moammar Ghadafi is killing his own citizens to suppress an al-Qaida  revolt.


6)      [Alleged] President Obama says that Moammar Ghadafi must be removed from power.


7)       Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood are fighting against Ghadafi.


8)      [Alleged] President Obama sends the U.S. armed forces to assist al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood in overthrowing the evil Ghadafi by providing air cover and bombardment with Tomahawk missiles.


9)      Ghadafi is bad.


10)  The United States has joined forces with al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood in the fight against Ghadafi.


11)  Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood are good.


Are you dizzy yet?  Someone hand me the Ibuprophen.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 27, 2011, 05:33:58 AM
Wow, this is the 1st time in history that the US got in bed with a bad group because it would lead to the defeat of a badder group.

Stop the presses.

Fucked up, but it happens a lot in our history.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:40:30 AM
so that makes it ok?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:42:24 AM
Gates says Libya not 'a vital interest' for US
AP via Yahoo! News ^ | March 27, 2011




WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he doesn't think Libya is "a vital interest" for the United States, but he does say the North African nation is part of a region that's of vital American interest.

Gates tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that "we clearly have interests" in Libya, though he doesn't believe it's a vital American interest.

Obama said that when innocent people are being "brutalized" and when a leader such as Gadhafi threatens "a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region" and when other countries are ready to help save lives, then it's in "our national interest to act."

Gates tells ABC's "This Week" that he doesn't think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the U.S. before military operations began last weekend.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 27, 2011, 05:48:13 AM
so that makes it ok?

I said it's fucked up, didn't I? 

Fucked up

Governments make their decisions based upon utilitarian, not moral viewpoints.

In the libyan case, there are two evils.  Just like in vietnam, just like in afghanistan twice, etc.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:06:58 AM
High 'O,' high 'O' -- off to war he goes
Last Updated: 3:40 AM, March 27, 2011

Posted: 12:48 AM, March 27, 2011



As the first Tomahawk mis siles rained on Libya, armchair generals rushed to define "The Obama Doctrine." Most assess ments focused on Obama's antiwar statements as a candidate and decisions by past presidents to take military action in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

All fair game -- except the conclusions were flawed. No discussion of Obama's view of a just war is complete unless it examines the impact of his magical thinking.

By that I mean his supreme confidence in his own vision and powers to remake the world. Fueled by a mixture of hubris and faculty-lounge idealism, his words and actions suggest he believes his presidency is exempt from the lessons of history and human nature.

Just as he claimed his election would mark "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," his wars defy traditional military doctrine. For example, his approach in Libya, as in Afghanistan, features a promise of timed withdrawal, but not a clear mission. In both he talks of "success" but not "victory," leaving the yardstick vague. The refusal to be precise reflects a belief that his intentions are virtuous, as distinct from his predecessors', and that he should be judged on that basis, not on results. His goal in Libya is so abstract that he refuses to call it a "war." That would make it sound brutal -- and ordinary.

We thus meet the term "kinetic military action" as a White House talking point.

Despite the endless slogs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite objections from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other brass, the president was confident that Libya would be easy in, easy out and that a civil war in an oil-rich tribal nation would be settled in days. After bypassing Congress and the public to cut a deal at the United Nations, we could fire missiles from ships at sea, drop bombs from 40,000 feet and be home in time for dinner.

It would be so surgical, the commander in chief could take his family on a trip to Brazil and points south while the military went into battle. We wouldn't need a single boot on the ground and could hand command to NATO or France or anybody who wanted it.

Meanwhile, after 42 years in power, a brutal and mad Moammar Khadafy would see our righteousness, lay down his weapons and quit his throne.

Presto. That's how a just war should end, and this time it would -- because of Obama.

That, I submit, is the real "Obama Doctrine."

That doctrine is not disturbed by the nagging war-gaming questions of "what if." As in, what if Khadafy refuses to quit? What if he does quit -- what is our plan for Libya? What if Islamists turn it into a safe haven?

Most of Obama's foreign policy is the fruit of the same poisoned tree. The laws of diplomacy were supposed to bend before his transforming breeze. Only they haven't cooperated.

The hot spots are growing, and in exchange for apologies and accommodations, we get more aggression. Not a single new ally has been recruited to our side.

Old friends are dispirited while adversaries such as Iran are emboldened. The "reset" with Russia and the Muslim world turns out to be another word for "retreat."

Despite the era, the challenges for every president are fundamentally similar: Secure America and promote the common good under the laws of the land.

Or, in the words of the presidential oath, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

It's a remarkably concise and direct pledge, demanding only dedication and integrity and a faith in the Almighty. Luck helps, too.

But belief in the magical powers of History's Great Man? That way yields only discord and disaster.




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:09:19 AM
By Byron York
Created Mar 26 2011 - 11:12am



Jihadis who fought U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan now enjoy American support in Libya


Comments (0) .Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks.  The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan.  "He was later handed over to the U.S., and then held in Libya before being released in 2008," the Telegraph reports.  Al-Hasidi also told the Italian paper he recruited about 25 Libyan men to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Al-Hasidi's story is consistent with evidence presented in a 2007 report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point.  That report, by professors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, examined records of an al Qaeda-affiliated organization found after an October 2007 raid near Sinjar, Iraq.  The records contained biographical information about nearly 700 foreign terrorists who came to Iraq to fight against the United States between August 2006 and August 2007.

Felter and Fishman found that the largest portion of foreign fighters, about 41 percent, came to Iraq from Saudi Arabia.  The second-largest source of foreign fighters, at nearly 19 percent, was Libya. "Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar records, including Saudi Arabia," the authors conclude. Since previous studies had indicated far fewer Libyan fighters in Iraq, the authors suggest there may have been a "surge" of Libyans into Iraq in the spring and summer of 2007.  "The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's [LIFG] increasingly cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG official joining al Qaeda on November 3, 2007," the report say.

The Telegraph, citing U.S. and British government sources, reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi was a member of the LIFG.

The Combating Terrorism Center reports says that Darnah, Libya -- al-Hasidi's hometown-- supplied more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other city, including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a city far larger than Darnah. Benghazi, Libya, now a rebel stronghold, was also a major source of Libyan fighters traveling to Iraq. "Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s," the authors report.  "The Libyan government blamed the uprising on 'infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt' and one group -- the Libyan Fighting Group -- claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent. [Libyan strongman Moammar] Gadhafi used helicopter gunships in Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Darnah and famously claimed that the militants "deserve to die without trial, like dogs."  In the current fighting, Gadhafi has said that the rebels fighting against him are affiliated with al Qaeda, but his claims have found little acceptance.

There is no doubt that the rebels associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are violent extremists.  The Combating Terrorism Center Report found that the Libyans, along with Moroccans, were more likely than others to become suicide bombers once they were in Iraq.  The Sinjar records, plus political developments in the 2007 time period, "suggest that Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al Qaeda," the report says.

Now, it is not clear what portion of the Libyan rebels, who enjoy the backing and assistance of the United States military, have been associated with al Qaeda and attacks on the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  That's one reason critics of the Libya war say the U.S.-led coalition doesn't really know who it's fighting for. But we may learn more in the future, especially if the rebels prevail and some former jihadis find themselves running Libya, courtesy of the United States.
.Beltway Confidential

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/jihadis-who-fought-us-iraq-afghanistan-now-enjoy-american-support


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:11:45 AM
How Long Will U.S. Forces be Involved in Libya? White House Says Nobody Knows
ABC News ^


Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:55:48 AM by Sub-Driver

How Long Will U.S. Forces be Involved in Libya? White House Says Nobody Knows

March 27, 2011 8:41 AM

The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for almost ten years, at war in Iraq for almost eight years and at war in Libya for nine days.

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we'll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don't think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
US officials: Libyan operation could last months (Where's the "anti-war" hypocrites now?)
yahoo ^ | 3/27/2011 | BRADLEY KLAPPER




U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

Ahead of President Barack Obama's national address Monday to explain his decision to act against the Libyan leader, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in appearances on the Sunday talk shows that the intervention had effectively rendered Gadhafi's forces defenseless against air attacks and created the conditions for opposition advances westward.

In interviews taped Saturday, Gates and Clinton also defended the narrowly defined U.N. mandate to prevent atrocities against Libyan civilians and said the U.S. had largely accomplished its goals.

"We have taken out his armor," Gates said, adding that the U.S. soon would relinquish its leading role in enforcing a no-fly zone and striking pro-Gadhafi ground targets intent on violence.

Clinton said "we're beginning to see, because of the good work of the coalition, his troops begin to turn back toward the west — and to see the opposition begin to reclaim the ground they had lost."


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 27, 2011, 07:21:23 AM
By Byron York
Created Mar 26 2011 - 11:12am



Jihadis who fought U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan now enjoy American support in Libya


Comments (0) .Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks.  The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan.  "He was later handed over to the U.S., and then held in Libya before being released in 2008," the Telegraph reports.  Al-Hasidi also told the Italian paper he recruited about 25 Libyan men to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Al-Hasidi's story is consistent with evidence presented in a 2007 report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point.  That report, by professors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, examined records of an al Qaeda-affiliated organization found after an October 2007 raid near Sinjar, Iraq.  The records contained biographical information about nearly 700 foreign terrorists who came to Iraq to fight against the United States between August 2006 and August 2007.

Felter and Fishman found that the largest portion of foreign fighters, about 41 percent, came to Iraq from Saudi Arabia.  The second-largest source of foreign fighters, at nearly 19 percent, was Libya. "Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar records, including Saudi Arabia," the authors conclude. Since previous studies had indicated far fewer Libyan fighters in Iraq, the authors suggest there may have been a "surge" of Libyans into Iraq in the spring and summer of 2007.  "The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's [LIFG] increasingly cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG official joining al Qaeda on November 3, 2007," the report say.

The Telegraph, citing U.S. and British government sources, reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi was a member of the LIFG.

The Combating Terrorism Center reports says that Darnah, Libya -- al-Hasidi's hometown-- supplied more foreign fighters to Iraq than any other city, including Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a city far larger than Darnah. Benghazi, Libya, now a rebel stronghold, was also a major source of Libyan fighters traveling to Iraq. "Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s," the authors report.  "The Libyan government blamed the uprising on 'infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt' and one group -- the Libyan Fighting Group -- claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent. [Libyan strongman Moammar] Gadhafi used helicopter gunships in Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Darnah and famously claimed that the militants "deserve to die without trial, like dogs."  In the current fighting, Gadhafi has said that the rebels fighting against him are affiliated with al Qaeda, but his claims have found little acceptance.

There is no doubt that the rebels associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are violent extremists.  The Combating Terrorism Center Report found that the Libyans, along with Moroccans, were more likely than others to become suicide bombers once they were in Iraq.  The Sinjar records, plus political developments in the 2007 time period, "suggest that Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al Qaeda," the report says.

Now, it is not clear what portion of the Libyan rebels, who enjoy the backing and assistance of the United States military, have been associated with al Qaeda and attacks on the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  That's one reason critics of the Libya war say the U.S.-led coalition doesn't really know who it's fighting for. But we may learn more in the future, especially if the rebels prevail and some former jihadis find themselves running Libya, courtesy of the United States.
.Beltway Confidential

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/jihadis-who-fought-us-iraq-afghanistan-now-enjoy-american-support


Where have I heard this information before?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 08:04:01 AM
Wow, this is the 1st time in history that the US got in bed with a bad group because it would lead to the defeat of a badder group.

Stop the presses.

Fucked up, but it happens a lot in our history.

Do you ever shut up? It's pretty nauseating watching you sit here and passively rationalize this operation that puts American lives at risk, wastes American money and also puts us fighting alongside Al Qaeda guys who have probably killed Americans. And for what? To keep this Arab spring going? Great. From one stable country led by a dictator to a complete cluster-fuck of tribes and terrorists all jockeying for power in a major oil-producer.  

I know, I know, you're a libertarian.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 08:22:47 AM
Even gates said tioday we have no vital national interest there. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 08:48:27 AM
Meet The Press: Hillary Big-Foots Bob Gates
NewsBusters ^ | MARK Finkelstein

Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011

Did the Secretary of Defense need to be defended . . . or jerked back into line? Hillary Clinton apparently thought so.

It was a stunning power play. On Meet The Press this morning, after Defense Secretary Bob Gates conceded that Libya is not a "vital interest" of the United States--but before he could complete his comments--Hillary cut him off. She launched into a minute-and-forty-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.

Gates had to sit and take it . . . and never got to say another word.

View video here.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 09:03:53 AM
Meet The Press: Hillary Big-Foots Bob Gates
NewsBusters ^ | MARK Finkelstein

Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011

Did the Secretary of Defense need to be defended . . . or jerked back into line? Hillary Clinton apparently thought so.

It was a stunning power play. On Meet The Press this morning, after Defense Secretary Bob Gates conceded that Libya is not a "vital interest" of the United States--but before he could complete his comments--Hillary cut him off. She launched into a minute-and-forty-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.

Gates had to sit and take it . . . and never got to say another word.

View video here.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hahaha, just yesterday Obama was saying that Libya is in our national interests. These morons can't even keep their stories aligned.

This war "kinetic military action" couldn't be more disorganized.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 09:14:25 AM
You really can't make it up anymore. 

Please anyone tell me how you support this admn any longer? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 27, 2011, 09:44:21 AM
your crasping for straws, she just added to what he said  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 09:49:42 AM
No he was telling the truth and she had to try to salvage that wtf moment as it is an admission that we have no interest there.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 27, 2011, 09:50:48 AM
I don't see the interest myself, but then why the fuck are we there?

Of course I didn't see the interest in Iraq either.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 27, 2011, 10:01:40 AM
ROBERT GATES: No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have an interest there, and it's a part of a region which is a vital interest for the United StatesGregory clearly addressed his follow-up question to Gates.


GREGORY: I think a lot of people would hear that and say, well that's quite striking.  Not in our vital interest and yet we're committing military resources --

Before Gates could respond, Hillary jumped in.


HILLARY CLINTON: -- but, but then it wouldn't be fair to what Bob just said.

CLINTON:  Did Libya attack us?  No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region, and do they neighbor two countries in this region, you just mentioned one, Egypt and the other one, Tunisia, which cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders?  Yes.Hillary went on to argue that Libya is in the vital interest of certain European allies and that we were responding to their urgent request to get involved.  She drew the analogy to Afghanistan, where our European allies joined our alliance after 9-11 although it was the United States, and not Europe, that had been attacked.





to logical people she just added to what he said, to the i hate obama people she said something totally different


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 10:05:44 AM
Ha ha ha ha - its called cya.  Gates told the truth and the obama junta can't have that.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: blacken700 on March 27, 2011, 10:12:47 AM
like i said your the i hate obama people  ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: headhuntersix on March 27, 2011, 10:33:20 AM
Hil loves this...u don't think they talked through the interview before hand. Anything that shows Obama's admin is a bunch of clowns works in her favor. If it comes back around to her she'll just say she was saying the approved talking point for the white house.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 27, 2011, 12:59:35 PM
ROBERT GATES: No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have an interest there, and it's a part of a region which is a vital interest for the United StatesGregory clearly addressed his follow-up question to Gates.


GREGORY: I think a lot of people would hear that and say, well that's quite striking.  Not in our vital interest and yet we're committing military resources --

Before Gates could respond, Hillary jumped in.


HILLARY CLINTON: -- but, but then it wouldn't be fair to what Bob just said.

CLINTON:  Did Libya attack us?  No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region, and do they neighbor two countries in this region, you just mentioned one, Egypt and the other one, Tunisia, which cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders?  Yes.Hillary went on to argue that Libya is in the vital interest of certain European allies and that we were responding to their urgent request to get involved.  She drew the analogy to Afghanistan, where our European allies joined our alliance after 9-11 although it was the United States, and not Europe, that had been attacked.





to logical people she just added to what he said, to the i hate obama people she said something totally different




proving 3333 wrong constantly is getting to be really boring........GOOD JOB! ;)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 01:05:15 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha  - talk about kneepadding. 

Hitlery saw the major gaffe of gates and knew she had to damage control since gates gave a devastsating sound bite to those of this who have been calling this a bizzare operation from day one. 

Keep up the kneepadding andre - I laugh my ass off at your sycophantic worship of the communist kenyan traitor obama. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 27, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha  - talk about kneepadding. 

Hitlery saw the major gaffe of gates and knew she had to damage control since gates gave a devastsating sound bite to those of this who have been calling this a bizzare operation from day one. 

Keep up the kneepadding andre - I laugh my ass off at your sycophantic worship of the communist kenyan traitor obama. 

not sycophantic...I just tell the truth..I have said the things I am critical of with Obama....in what way do you agree with Obama?..tell us...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on March 27, 2011, 04:37:37 PM
not sycophantic...I just tell the truth..I have said the things I am critical of with Obama....in what way do you agree with Obama?..tell us...



You tell the truth?  Weren't you the one claiming there was secret shit going down that nobody including yourself had knowledge of?  But somehow you still knew about it?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 27, 2011, 04:44:11 PM


You tell the truth?  Weren't you the one claiming there was secret shit going down that nobody including yourself had knowledge of?  But somehow you still knew about it?

I never said I had knowledge of anything....I simply said that Obama and the U.S. government work behind the scenes often and you nor I know the full story of whats going on...the wikileaks cables prove my point....so when you say that Obama doesn't do this or that in a crisis you don't know if thats true or not....nor do I.....that was my point...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:16:09 PM
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize


(CNN) -- Dr. Abdulmonem Hresha knows first hand how Moammar Gadhafi's regime works. He says the seeds of his opposition were sown when he was age 10.

He and classmates were taken to witness the public execution of a political opponent of Gadhafi.

"They hung him up in front of thousands of small kids," Hresha said. "He did that to scare people."

Hresha, who taught physics at Tripoli University, later fled to Canada.

The prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood now lives in London, and anticipates the group could become an important player in a post-Gadhafi environment.

As in Egypt and Tunisia, the Brotherhood in Libya has been energized by the sudden upheaval sweeping the Arab world.

It says it has no organizational links with the Brotherhood elsewhere, but shares the philosophy of the pan-Arab Islamist movement founded in Egypt in the 1920s.

Largely drawn from the devout educated middle classes and university campuses in Tripoli and Benghazi, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the mid-1950s.

Islamist opposition to the Libyan regime gathered force in the late 1980s, as part of a wider Islamic awakening or "Sahwa" in the region and in reaction to what many saw as an attempt by Gadhafi to hijack and interpret Islam for his own purposes.

While jihadists launched a brief but unsuccessful campaign to overthrow Gadhafi in the 1990s, the Brotherhood focused much of its efforts on clandestine preaching and social welfare efforts in Libya.0

In 1998, Gadhafi's security services launched a crackdown against the group that saw more than 200 members imprisoned and hundreds more forced into exile, including Hresha.

Despite years of repression, Hresha claims the Brotherhood still has thousands of members scattered across Libya, with chapters in almost every single town, including Sirte, Gadhafi's birthplace on the coast west of Tripoli.

In 2006, its leaders were released after reconciling with the Libyan regime. But now the Brotherhood is siding with the rebellion.

In February, as protests in Libya began, Yusuf al Qaradawi -- an Egyptian preacher in Qatar widely viewed as the Muslim Brotherhood's chief spiritual guide -- issued a fatwa or religious ruling obliging any Libyan soldier who had the opportunity to do so to assassinate the leader.

Al-Amin Bilhaj, a leading figure in the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and the President of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) recently traveled to Benghazi, the headquarters of the rebel movement, according to Hresha.

Other Brotherhood exiles have returned to help treat the wounded in hospitals, according to Kemal el Helbawy, the Egyptian founder of the British association.

There is little or no overt presence of the Brotherhood in Benghazi, according to CNN's Arwa Damon, who has been there for most of the month.

But in the longer term, in a country where the political space has been dominated by Gadhafi for more than 40 years, the Brotherhood's organization and nationwide presence may afford it an advantage.

The West has nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, according to Hresha.

Like their counterparts in Egypt, they would embrace multiparty democracy.

"I've lived for many years in Canada and the UK, and that's exactly the political system that we want," Hresha said.

Hresha says that if his organization forms a political party, it would seek to legislate according to Koranic principles, which would include, for example, a continued ban on the sale of alcohol.

"Why shouldn't we be able to press our point of view -- we are humans too," he said.

Hresha said the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood welcomes airstrikes in Libya, a startling turnaround for a movement that previously supported jihad by Iraqis against U.S. forces occupying Iraq.

"I salute and am very grateful to the Americans, French and British governments for stopping the killing," he said. "I will never forget this."

Hresha said he hopes a post-Gadhafi Libya will be a close friend to the West.

A more prominent role for the Brotherhood in Libya could dent support for al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, especially in eastern provinces that have witnessed significant radicalization in recent years.

But Libya's deeply tribal structures -- unlike Egypt and Tunisia -- may complicate its efforts to build a national base.

And hardline "Salafi" preachers have gained influence in neglected towns like Derna -- on the coast near the border with Egypt.

"Conservative imams (in Derna)," a U.S. diplomat wrote in 2008, "deliberately sought to eliminate the few social activities on offer for young people to monopolize the social and cultural environment."

But in the end, the reach of the Brotherhood may be most limited by the emergence of secular forces at the forefront of the rebel movement.

The Interim National Council in Benghazi -- a 30-member opposition leadership -- is mostly made up of lawyers, doctors, intellectuals and former political prisoners with a secular bent.

In a statement Monday, the Council stated the ultimate goal of the revolution was "to build a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens including ... equal opportunities between men and women and the promotion of women empowerment."

Guma el-Gamaty, a Libyan academic based in the UK who has emerged as a key liaison between the Libyan opposition overseas and the Benghazi Council said no Muslim Brotherhood leaders had yet been appointed to the Council, and played down their influence.

Hresha, the long-time Brotherhood member, expects that to change.

"We've been working secretly till this moment," he said.
 

 
 
 
Links referenced within this article


 

 
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/25/libya.islamists/index.html

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 05:18:36 PM
One has to wonder if Obama really is trying to help rebuild the caliphate, because that's where these countries are headed.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 05:27:30 PM
Obama Regime: Libyan Operation could last months

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ahead of President Barack Obama’s national address on Libya, top officials of his administration claimed major strides were being made in bolstering rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces but acknowledged there was no timetable for ending the international operation.

Lawmakers of both parties voiced skepticism over the length, scope and costs of the mission.

“We have to a very large extent completed the military mission in terms of getting it set up. Now, the no-fly zone and even the humanitarian side will have to be sustained for some period of time,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

Asked for how long on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates said, “Nobody knows the answer to that question.” But he said sustaining the no-fly zone would take “a lot less effort” than establishing it. He said the Pentagon was planning to shift some of its resources to European and other countries pledging to take on a larger role.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-27-14-05-34


"Kinetic Military Action".  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:33:07 PM
The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions. 

;D

I'm not that much of a CTer. I think it has more to do with his incompetence, inexperience, naivety and typical dipshit far-leftist Utopian view of the world.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 27, 2011, 05:36:21 PM
The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions.  

you're SO new at this CT thing, brah.  The prevalent CT is this:

The billions$ that go missing in afghanistan and iraq go to al-Q.  We feed them $ to keep the war machine going.  We WANT al-Q in libya to do well so we'll have a war tehre down the road, hence our installing a company man to lead them.

Geez, you're so partisan on these CTs.  Alex Jones is 100% right on Obama, but 0% right on Al-Q, hmmm?  ;)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:37:38 PM
I made up that CT on my own. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 27, 2011, 05:39:21 PM
I made up that CT on my own. 

alex jones on pp.com right now, is pushing the CT I just listed.

Is he correct?  Or full of shit?  Keep in mind the man spends his life on this stuff and nailed Obama 1000% on his shady shit.  And he did it to Clinton and Bush before that.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:41:07 PM
alex jones on pp.com right now, is pushing the CT I just listed.

Is he correct?  Or full of shit?  Keep in mind the man spends his life on this stuff and nailed Obama 1000% on his shady shit.  And he did it to Clinton and Bush before that.

im listening to batchelor right now. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 05:43:22 PM
im listening to batchelor right now. 

Someone on Batchelor's show laid it out flawlessly last week. In a revolution the most violent and brutal rise up to power and right now that honor belongs to the MB.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
U.S.'s Lose-Lose War Objective in Libya: A Tie
by Arnold Ahlert (more by this author)
Posted 03/26/2011 ET
Updated 03/27/2011 ET



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=42489




My late father, a WWll veteran, never had much love for the military.  Respect and a sense of duty, yes, but no love.  He made this clear when I was a kid and we were watching the Army-Navy football game.  "Who are you rooting for?" I asked, knowing how he felt.  "I'm rooting for a tie," he answered.  As I look at what's going on in Libya, with full consideration of who the players are, I'm rooting for the same thing.

Spare me the humanitarian bit.  When you have Islamic jihadists going toe-to-toe with a mass-murdering thug and his followers, humanitarianism is in dangerously short supply.  So, apparently, is sanity.  If Colonel Cuckoo wins, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state that hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.  If the rebels win, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state which hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.

Is there clarity in redundancy?

And then there's Barack Obama, our Backseat-Driver-in-Chief.  I'm waiting for the breathless mainstream media story gushing about how great our "multitasking" President is, given the fact that he can put us in our third war in the Middle East without missing his umpteenth vacation or golf game.  Perhaps, as he did with the NCAA basketball tourney, he can give us his Final Four coalition picks—as in which coalition members will stick around the longest when the outbreak of anti-war fever reaches epidemic proportions.

Remember when the last President was excoriated for his "cowboy diplomacy?"  Remember when humanitarianism wasn't worth a damn when it applied to either the Afghans or the Iraqis?  Remember all those "smart" people who said leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been a better outcome than liberating Iraq?  Remember when a certain man who would be President said removing that thug was a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology?"  Remember when the "experts" said Hussein could be "contained," which amounted to imposing a 12-year, no-fly zone over his country?

Who's going impose a 12-week, no-fly zone over Libya?

Not us.  According to a conversation he had with members of Congress last Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, said the President "expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks. ... It will not be an open-ended effort by the United States."

Sure it won't.  History is replete with heroic tales of Europeans and/or Arabs acting in their own self-interest without American involvement, right?  No doubt after all that aforementioned cowboy diplomacy, the world is ready for the United States of Switzerland to stand on the sidelines, wishing everyone else good luck.

You know what our national interests are in Libya?  Neither do I.  At least with Afghanistan and Iraq, a reasonable case could be made that both posed a threat to our well-being.  And even if one totally disagrees, one would think that we would have learned at least one lesson with respect to military involvement:  "Winning hearts and minds" is an impossible substitute for kicking jihadist butt and coming home.  One can only wonder how another bout of politically correct hairsplitting, as in the current mission's stated goal of imposing a no-fly zone, irrespective of whether or not Gaddafi remains in power, can be taken seriously.  An entire mission dedicated to evening out the odds between the rebels and the loyalists, so they can kill each other more "fairly?" 

Putting American lives on the line to facilitate a tie?

How in the world can America be involved in a war without choosing a side?  Last time I checked, choosing sides was the only reason to put American blood and treasure on the line.  Again, spare me the humanitarian thing.  Gaddafi had an entire month to slaughter innocents while Western nations and the United Nations twiddled their diplomatic fingers searching for a "solution."  And what did they come up with?  Killing innocents with planes?  Bad.  Slaughtering them in house-to-house, hand-to-hand combat?  So far, so "good."

And that's just Libya.  Last week in Yemen, snipers on rooftops killed 46 demonstrators, including three children, who were part of a protest challenging President Ali Abdullah Saleh's 32-year grip on power.  Police sealed off an escape route from the demonstration with a wall of burning tires, effectively turning the protest into a government-led killing field.  In Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, with the support of 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and 500 policemen from the United Arab Emirates, has killed dozens of protesters and wounded or arrested hundreds more in an effort to crush a Shiite-led rebellion against Sunni-controlled government. 

Apparently some manifestations of inhumanity are "more equal" than others.

Here's a modest proposal for Congress.  That would be the same Congress that had no say whatsoever with regard to American involvement in Libya.  Demand two votes be held, one contingent on the other.  In return for putting Americans into this skirmish, a crash program for developing domestic sources of energy must be instituted.  Let's see who votes for what.  Americans deserve to know whether we're always going to be beholden to a bunch of 7th century fanatics, or if there's a common-sense light at the end of the energy tunnel.  Who, besides our clueless President and his enviro-minions, is in favor of $5 gas accompanied by not-so-occasional firefights in the Middle East?  That's the real national security issue this country must face. 

Two months ago, Gaddafi was still "our bastard."  Now he's another dropout from the Barack Obama Muslim Outreach Institute.  When in the world are we going to snap out of it?




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 27, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
U.S.'s Lose-Lose War Objective in Libya: A Tie
by Arnold Ahlert (more by this author)
Posted 03/26/2011 ET
Updated 03/27/2011 ET



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=42489




My late father, a WWll veteran, never had much love for the military.  Respect and a sense of duty, yes, but no love.  He made this clear when I was a kid and we were watching the Army-Navy football game.  "Who are you rooting for?" I asked, knowing how he felt.  "I'm rooting for a tie," he answered.  As I look at what's going on in Libya, with full consideration of who the players are, I'm rooting for the same thing.

Spare me the humanitarian bit.  When you have Islamic jihadists going toe-to-toe with a mass-murdering thug and his followers, humanitarianism is in dangerously short supply.  So, apparently, is sanity.  If Colonel Cuckoo wins, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state that hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.  If the rebels win, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state which hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.

Is there clarity in redundancy?

And then there's Barack Obama, our Backseat-Driver-in-Chief.  I'm waiting for the breathless mainstream media story gushing about how great our "multitasking" President is, given the fact that he can put us in our third war in the Middle East without missing his umpteenth vacation or golf game.  Perhaps, as he did with the NCAA basketball tourney, he can give us his Final Four coalition picks—as in which coalition members will stick around the longest when the outbreak of anti-war fever reaches epidemic proportions.

Remember when the last President was excoriated for his "cowboy diplomacy?"  Remember when humanitarianism wasn't worth a damn when it applied to either the Afghans or the Iraqis?  Remember all those "smart" people who said leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been a better outcome than liberating Iraq?  Remember when a certain man who would be President said removing that thug was a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology?"  Remember when the "experts" said Hussein could be "contained," which amounted to imposing a 12-year, no-fly zone over his country?

Who's going impose a 12-week, no-fly zone over Libya?

Not us.  According to a conversation he had with members of Congress last Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, said the President "expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks. ... It will not be an open-ended effort by the United States."

Sure it won't.  History is replete with heroic tales of Europeans and/or Arabs acting in their own self-interest without American involvement, right?  No doubt after all that aforementioned cowboy diplomacy, the world is ready for the United States of Switzerland to stand on the sidelines, wishing everyone else good luck.

You know what our national interests are in Libya?  Neither do I.  At least with Afghanistan and Iraq, a reasonable case could be made that both posed a threat to our well-being.  And even if one totally disagrees, one would think that we would have learned at least one lesson with respect to military involvement:  "Winning hearts and minds" is an impossible substitute for kicking jihadist butt and coming home.  One can only wonder how another bout of politically correct hairsplitting, as in the current mission's stated goal of imposing a no-fly zone, irrespective of whether or not Gaddafi remains in power, can be taken seriously.  An entire mission dedicated to evening out the odds between the rebels and the loyalists, so they can kill each other more "fairly?" 

Putting American lives on the line to facilitate a tie?

How in the world can America be involved in a war without choosing a side?  Last time I checked, choosing sides was the only reason to put American blood and treasure on the line.  Again, spare me the humanitarian thing.  Gaddafi had an entire month to slaughter innocents while Western nations and the United Nations twiddled their diplomatic fingers searching for a "solution."  And what did they come up with?  Killing innocents with planes?  Bad.  Slaughtering them in house-to-house, hand-to-hand combat?  So far, so "good."

And that's just Libya.  Last week in Yemen, snipers on rooftops killed 46 demonstrators, including three children, who were part of a protest challenging President Ali Abdullah Saleh's 32-year grip on power.  Police sealed off an escape route from the demonstration with a wall of burning tires, effectively turning the protest into a government-led killing field.  In Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, with the support of 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and 500 policemen from the United Arab Emirates, has killed dozens of protesters and wounded or arrested hundreds more in an effort to crush a Shiite-led rebellion against Sunni-controlled government. 

Apparently some manifestations of inhumanity are "more equal" than others.

Here's a modest proposal for Congress.  That would be the same Congress that had no say whatsoever with regard to American involvement in Libya.  Demand two votes be held, one contingent on the other.  In return for putting Americans into this skirmish, a crash program for developing domestic sources of energy must be instituted.  Let's see who votes for what.  Americans deserve to know whether we're always going to be beholden to a bunch of 7th century fanatics, or if there's a common-sense light at the end of the energy tunnel.  Who, besides our clueless President and his enviro-minions, is in favor of $5 gas accompanied by not-so-occasional firefights in the Middle East?  That's the real national security issue this country must face. 

Two months ago, Gaddafi was still "our bastard."  Now he's another dropout from the Barack Obama Muslim Outreach Institute.  When in the world are we going to snap out of it?





Great article.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 2ND COMING on March 27, 2011, 05:59:46 PM
im listening to batchelor right now. 

You dont happen to have a link do you? Does he stream online?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:04:37 PM
You dont happen to have a link do you? Does he stream online?


yes - check out the thread i bumped. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 27, 2011, 06:20:36 PM
Pulitzer Prize Winning Iraq War Critic: 'All Obama Is Saying Is Give War A Chance'
Newsbusters ^
Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:14:25 PM by Sub-Driver

Pulitzer Prize Winning Iraq War Critic: 'All Obama Is Saying Is Give War A Chance' By Noel Sheppard Created 03/27/2011 - 5:42pm

By Noel Sheppard | March 27, 2011 | 17:42 Noel Sheppard's picture

Barack Obama sure is getting support for his Libyan attack from what on the surface would seem a lot of unlikely sources.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraq war critic Tom Ricks told David Gregory, "All Obama is saying is give war a chance" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY: Well, and, Tom Ricks, look, we began the broadcast this morning, Richard Engel's reporting on the progress of the rebels. They're getting closer to Tripoli. Then what? That's the moment we leave? Or are we going to supply the rebels? Are we--I mean, if Gadhafi stays, can we really say this is mission accomplished?

TOM RICKS, CONTRIBUTing EDITOR "FOREIGN POLICY": Yes. I think what they'll say is we gave it a chance. All Obama is saying is give war a chance. Not our war. All we did was kick the door down, let the Brits and the French and the others do it. And I think his notion is we're going to be out of there long before this is resolved. That's the hope. That's the best-case scenario.

For those unfamiliar with Ricks, he is the contributing editor to Foreign Policy magazine as well as a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a national security think tank with very close ties to the Obama administration.

Ricks used to be a special military correspondent for the Washington Post, and wrote "Fiasco" in 2006 which was highly critical of the Iraq war.

He was staunchly opposed to the 2007 troop surge, and said in 2009, "I think that invading Iraq preemptively on false premises, at the time that we already were at war elsewhere, was probably the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy."

Now, two years later with the United States involved in its third military incursion, Ricks is on "Meet the Press" stating, "All Obama is saying is give war a chance."

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 04:04:12 AM


Toby Harnden is the Daily Telegraph's US Editor, based in Washington DC. Click here for Toby's website. His email is toby.harnden@telegraph-usa.com. Follow him on Twitter here @tobyharnden and on Facebook here. His second book, Dead Men Risen, is available through Telegraph Books. 10 things Libya tells us about Barack Obama and war


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100081483/barack-obamas-libya-policy-dither-delay-distaste-and-regret




By Toby Harnden World Last updated: March 28th, 2011

91 Comments Comment on this article

America’s intervention in Libya, riding on the coattails of Britain and France, may yet turn out for the best. There are indications that coalition air power has given the rebels the opportunity to stem and perhaps even turn the military tide against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

Regime change may not be a declared objective but if Gaddafi remains in power, that will be a huge blow to American prestige, not to mention the effect on the human rights of ordinary Libyans. But it is very possible that Gaddafi will be killed or overthrown in the coming days.

Much of the Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s intervention strikes me as disingenuous and partisan. There is a moral case for war and the, er, rather unfortunate Western coddling of Gaddafi after 2003 does not alter the fact that his continued presence as Libyan leader represents a threat to America.

Be all that as it may, however, if success is achieved then this will be as much despite as because of Obama’s policies. The past few weeks have betrayed a number of startling truths about the way Obama views the world. Here are 10 of them:

1. Obama prefers to follow Europeans rather than lead them.

2. Obama’s failure to consult Congress further illustrates that much of his campaign rhetoric about President George W. Bush’s foreign policy was bogus (other evidence includes the increase in drone strikes and the maintenance of Guantanamo and the accompanying military tribunal structure).

3. Obama will go to war even when there’s no vital American interest. Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, let the cat out of the bag today.

4. Obama accepts the notion that an American imprimatur on military action is distasteful – running the risk of fuelling anti-Americanism. He seems reluctant to try to persuade nations that America is a force for good, perhaps because he is unsure of this himself.

5. Obama dithers and delays before making a decision and then appears to regret it and pursues the policy he has chosen with half-heartedness (this is what he has done in Afghanistan).

6. Obama is a good speaker but a poor communicator.

7. Obama has a tendency to take “tough” action because he’s afraid of appearing weak (he also did this when he fired General Stanley McChrystal).

8. Obama really does believe in the “international community” and the intrinsic goodness of the UN.

9. Obama will go to war, but would prefer not to admit it.

10. Obama is prepared to go to war with muddled military objectives and no plan for the end game.
Tags: afghanistan, Barack Obama, George W Bush, Guantanamo, Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Robert Gates, US politics



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 08:00:11 AM

March 28, 2011
Did Obama Forget to Have a Gaddafi Meeting 'Without Preconditions'?
By Monte Kuligowski




Of all the disturbing and problematic aspects of Obama's post-American military odyssey, what fascinates me is that Obama would rush to half-hearted war with Moammar Gaddafi -- of all people.


After seeing the dreadful force of the U.S. military unleashed on his fellow ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi was crying uncle before George W. Bush could twist his wrist.  In December of 2003, Col. Gaddafi announced to the world that he would be voluntarily abandoning his nuclear weapons program.  "Libya has said it will give up its programmes for developing weapons of mass destruction and allow unconditional inspections," reported BBC News in 2003.


Gaddafi was no Saddam Hussein in the stubbornness department.  The colonel saw the light rather quickly and became an instant convert in support of democratic nation-building.  The Libyan dictator assured Tony Blair and Bush that he wanted to be a partner in making the world a safer place.


In Gaddafi's willingness to have "unconditional" inspections of his facilities and Barack Obama's willingness during the 2008 campaign to sit down with dictators "without preconditions," we see a perfect match.


As crazy as it sounds, Obama's greenhorn idea of meeting with dictators without preconditions might have actually worked in the case of Moammar Gaddafi.


Obama already had connections to Gaddafi via his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan.  Rev. Wright and Farrakhan had traveled together in 1984 to meet with Gaddafi in Tripoli.  And Obama reportedly attended Farrakhan's Million Man March with Wright.  Surely, the four men could have sat down together and hammered things out over some Turkish coffee.


Prior to launching a military attack without the authorization (or even knowledge) of Congress, Obama could have negotiated with Gaddafi -- except maybe with a couple of preconditions.  We were told that the tripartite wonder of Obama's Muslim background, brilliance, and charm would work wonders in certain foreign policy ambits -- but we've yet to see any benefits accrue.


Mr. Obama might have missed his big diplomatic moment to work the magic his disillusioned fans have been waiting for since the failed Olympics bid.


From Gaddafi's perspective, he and Obama were on brotherly terms.  In a recent letter to Obama, Gaddafi called Obama his "son" and expressed his loving affections (for some reason I can't see Moammar calling any other U.S. president his son).  Gaddafi also sent a message to other U.N. leaders:


The tone of the messages was markedly different. The one to President Obama stuck a consolatory tone, while the other was more aggressive - accusing David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy and the Ban ki-Moon of meddling in Libyan affairs.


Obama waited a full week into the unrest before even mentioning Gaddafi's name.  And when Obama did speak out, he did so in general, ambiguous terms.  Then, out of the blue, Obama was calling for Gaddafi to step down and agreeing with Sarkozy's no-fly-zone, and without warning, the USS Barry was firing Tomahawks at the dictator's compounds.


Some "son" Obama proved to be.  In light of Obama's campaign promise to negotiate with dictators, he could have at least warned his father that Sarkozy was serious.


Obama had a unique opportunity for diplomacy, but he did a 180 without rhyme or reason.  Maybe the stresses of entertaining, vacationing, golfing, basketball brackets, and life-and-death decisions were just too much.


If Obama had attempted diplomacy and failed, he then could have tried to get the approval of Congress to launch a full-on invasion.  Only troops on the ground would achieve Obama's objective anyway -- whatever that is.  Whether Obama's objective is to protect the opposition forces or to remove Gaddafi or both, an on-the-ground military presence realistically would be required.  But considering that Libya poses no threat to the U.S., direct or otherwise, I sort of doubt that Congress would have consented.


That's probably why Obama decided to go it alone (with foreign authorization only).  By contrast, the military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress and involved twice as many foreign coalition partners as the Libya coalition.


In rushing into a military attack operation without any real attempt at diplomacy and without the authorization of Congress, one has to wonder what Obama was thinking.


Of course, the worst of all possible scenarios materialized: Obama surrendered U.S. military sovereignty to a U.N. committee and telegraphed to Gaddafi that no clear goal exists, no troops will be sent into Libya, and the bombing operation will end quickly.  Even Gaddafi is not likely to become weak-kneed under that scenario.


The only one likely to get weak-kneed is Obama in trying to spin or redeem his impulsive, sovereignty-yielding war decision -- especially if the Russians decide to assist Gaddafi in the fight.


Whether we're talking about rising employment, skyrocketing health care and gas prices, or post-American foreign policy, Obama seems to have a knack for achieving the worst possible outcome for America.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/did_obama_forget_to_have_a_gad.html at March 28, 2011 - 10:58:54 AM CDT


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 28, 2011, 10:41:48 AM
White House: Obama Intervened in Libya Because It Served America’s “Best Interests”

(The Hill)- No sense of precedent guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, administration officials said Monday.

“We don’t make decisions on interventions based on consistency or precedent,” said Denis McDonough, the administration’s deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. “We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

Administration officials wouldn’t outline the contents of Obama’s speech, and McDonough’s remarks suggest Obama is unlikely to lay out any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region



Since when did America’s “best interests” include keeping the French and British fully supplied with Libyan oil?





Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 12:23:13 PM
White House says Libya decision based on 'best interests'
By Michael O'Brien - 03/28/11 12:54 PM ET

 
No sense of precedent guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, administration officials said Monday.

We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."


McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.


Administration officials wouldn’t outline the contents of Obama’s speech, and McDonough’s remarks suggest Obama is unlikely to lay out any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts.

Obama will make his case for the short-lived U.S. military offensive in Libya to the public in a speech Monday night from the National Defense University in Washington.

The speech will provide the president his greatest opportunity so far to take his case for intervention in Libya to the public.

Polls have found mixed views on Obama’s decision to join other United Nations members in air strikes against Libya. Lawmakers in both parties have criticized the White House for a lack of consultations, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed a “sometimes contradictory” explanation for the action.

Monday’s speech is part of a blitz by the White House to win support from the public and Congress for Obama’s actions. After Monday’s address, Obama on Tuesday will sit for interviews with the anchors of NBC, ABC and CBS.

McDonough emphasized the differences between the situation in Libya and clashes between anti-government demonstrators and ruling governments in other countries in the Middle East.

In particular, McDonough referenced Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s direct threats of violence against some of his own citizens as part of the reason the U.S. felt compelled to get its military involved in Libya.

Obama sought to reach out to lawmakers last week by providing a briefing to top members of Congress in both parties and from both chambers, notifying them of the progress of military operations and the eventual transfer in responsibility for the operation to NATO, which took charge on Sunday evening.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the White House had no objections to lawmakers asking questions, though he strongly rebuffed the notion that the administration hadn’t been fully forthcoming in its briefings of lawmakers.

“Questions are legitimate; they deserve to be answered,” he said. “We have endeavored to answer them.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 28, 2011, 04:09:17 PM
Libyan Rebel Radio: “Brothers Who Fought in Iraq And Afghanistan, Now is the Time to Defend Your Land!”

As I reported on Friday, Libyan rebel commander Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi has admitted to fighting in Afghanistan – namely, on the side of al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and even to recruiting Libyans to join al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Hasadi made these admissions in conversation with Roberto Bongiorni of the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore. Bongiorni’s report from al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah contains another interesting detail: one that suggests just how widespread the participation of the locals in the Afghan and Iraq “jihads” must have been.

Bongiorni describes his arrival in Darnah as follows:

One sees that Darnah is a conservative city from the religious fervor of its inhabitants, from the Islamic manner of dress, from the long beards. “Dear brothers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the announcer on the local radio exhorts…, “Now is the time to defend your land!”

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/28/rebel-libya-%E2%80%9Cbrothers-who-fought-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-now-is-the-time-to-defend-your-land%E2%80%9D/



Yessir Obama, we need to save these terrorists! It fills me with joy knowing that we're fighting alongside people who, up until 3 weeks ago, were trying to kill us.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 06:41:30 PM
FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

By CALVIN WOODWARD and RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press


Interactives
Role of US, NATO under scrutiny in Libya
Obama on Libya: 'We have a responsibility to act'

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts
 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion - coordinated or not - to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

---

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors - Britain and France - combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

---

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces - and on the supply and communications links that support them - is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

---

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not 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," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

---

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

---

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so - by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

---

Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 06:42:40 PM
Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says
abc ^ | 3/28/11 | George Stephanopoulos




One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.

A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 07:05:32 PM
Obama Speech Analysis: a Weird Journey Through the Mind of a Narcissist
foxnews ^



The President's address was an exercise in psychodrama, a weird journey through the mind of a narcissist who can't believe all the nasty things people are saying about him.

Obama's id is wrestling with the comparisons between his Libyan intervention and George Bush's action in Iraq. He made a point of criticizing Iraq, which had a vastly larger international coalition behind it than Obama does now, united in the struggle to depose an even more gruesome and sadistic monster than Qaddafi. He warned us that we might be stuck in post-Qaddafi Libya for a while because "40 years of terror left Libya fractured." The left never cut Bush any slack for trying to rebuild a country traumatized by decades of terror from Saddam Hussein.

The President's ego is very sensitive to the criticism that his handling of the Libyan situation was lazy and disengaged. He's constructed a new narrative in his own mind, where he "created the conditions for others to step up," leading the Europeans to declare "a willingness to commit resources." Thus does Obama retroactively become the hero of a military operation France, England, and Hillary Clinton dragged him into, and which he authorized with a few peevish phone calls from a South American junket.

Obama is clearly working through some deep issues about the Clintons. He took a few unexpected, oblique shots at Bill Clinton, noting that "the international community waited more than a year" before intervening in Bosnia, while Obama got ordinance dropped on Tripoli "in 31 days." He also congratulated himself for refusing "to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." You might want to put some ice on that, Mr. Clinton.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 28, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT

The Corner


About    |    Archive    |    E-mail    |    Log In to Comment

Obama Still Murky on Libya

By Victor Davis Hanson



Posted on March 28, 2011 9:25 PM President Obama just gave a weird speech. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes.

His support for those “yearning for freedom all around the world” was the sort of interventionist foreign policy that a Senator Obama — if his past reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein is any indication — would have objected to, especially in the case of sending bombers over an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country. Since Saddam was a far greater monster (gassing thousands is far worse than turning off the water to neighborhoods) than the monsters that Obama now wishes to slay, I think he has confused rather than enlightened his audience.

There was no mention of the Congress. Is he going to ever ask its approval? And if not, why the repeated emphasis on asking others such as the Arab League or the UN for their approval — given that their representatives, unlike ours, are largely not elected?

In a speech dedicated to clarifying our policy, it left it even more murky. What was our objective, and what is it now? Obama asserted that “We have stopped his deadly advance.” But is that the aim — the status quo, and a sort of permanent safe zone for rebels in accordance with UN directives? Or are we going beyond that to eliminate Qaddafi, who is the source of the problem? The president now says he won’t overthrow Qaddafi by force, but that is what he hopes, in fact, will happen as a result of our military presence:

Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

This is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush’s declaration that he wanted Saddam gone, had used our military to save Kuwait, but not to remove Saddam, urged others to remove him — and then ended up solving one problem while creating another more violent and unending.

Constant reference was made to UN sanctions, in contrast both to the costs incurred in Bush’s Iraq, and the dithering by Clinton in the Balkans. He talked of allies, of joint operations, and a diminished American role to come. But again, to fulfill the UN mandate of saving the Libyans, he is going to have to violate — or at least go beyond — it by going after Qaddafi, a task he now seems to have outsourced to the Europeans, after ceasing the Tomahawk attacks on key Libyan ground installations. Why brag that “we targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply” when we are not going to do it any more, in admission that to do so would be going well beyond a UN-sanctioned no-fly-zone?

Translation: It now seems good to have removed Saddam, but too costly. It was good to remove Milosevic, but it took too long. So I will remove Qaddafi much more quickly and at far less cost, but I won’t do it by targeting Qaddafi, but by preventing his aircraft from flying and hoping Qaddafi goes away. Qaddafi deserves our special intervention because he is worse than other dictators, such as an Assad who is a “reformer” or Ahmadinejad whom we won’t “meddle” against. We successfully sought a UN resolution to protect the people, and will stick by it, but hope somehow someone will go beyond it and remove Qaddafi. We are an exceptional nation that has always acted out of humanitarian concerns in a way not true of other countries (“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”), but unfortunately in this case

the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search-and-rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military, and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly.

Somehow, I don’t think Qaddafi will be impressed enough to step down; the European allies will be somewhat confused over the degree of future American support; the rebels will wonder whether they should take Tripoli or should settle for a zone of sanctuary; critics won’t know whether Obama will ever consult the Congress;  we still don’t know why Qaddafi was worse than an Assad or Ahmadinejad — or who or what the rebels are and what the U.S. role will be to ensure something better than Qaddafi.

Other than that, it was yet another well-delivered, split-the-difference, mellifluous Obama speech that said essentially nothing of substance.

PERMALINK
 




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 04:03:48 AM
Barack Obama's muddled speech leaves Libya war aims unclear (Obama's actions unconstitutional)
telegraph uk ^ | 3/28/2011 | Toby Harnden




President Barack Obama delivered an elegant speech in a setting – the National Defence University – in which he appeared much more at ease then he does in the Oval Office. He spoke movingly of the moral rationale to intervene in Libya and of Amerian leadership in the world:

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that he left Americans no clearer about how this war ends and while speaking about American leadership tried to pretend that it was the European allies and Nato that were going to take the weight from this point on (the reality is that the US wil continue to do the heavy lifting).

While stating that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had to go, he clung to the fiction that this action was about protecting civilians and shrunk from committing US forces to finish the job by unseating its murderous ruler.

The Associated Press has an excellent fact check here. As the AP points out, Obama’s own test for consulting Congress that he outlined in 2007 has not been met in this case:

The president does not 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. History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 04:11:55 AM
Report: Biden Opposes Obama on Libya (Matthews panel notes Veep's absence, W.H. A.Q.M fears)
Sunday, March 27, 2011 | Kristinn




Vice President Joe Biden is opposed to President Barack Obama's attack on Libya, according to the reporter panel on the Chris Matthews Show broadcast the weekend of March 26-27.

There was also mention of White House concerns that it doesn't know who the rebels in Libya are and that they may be tied to al Qaeda in the Maghreb.

The panel noted Biden's public silence on Libya and tied his opposition as consistent with Biden's opposition to Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan.

What was striking about the panels' conversation was how casually it was discussed. Matthews set up the discussion with the lighthearted cultural reference question, "Where's Waldo?"

The vice president opposing the president launching a kinetic military action and apparently not being able to be a 'good soldier' and publicly campaign for support for the effort is huge news--except for liberal reporters covering a liberal administration as the discusssion was held at the last segment of the half-hour broadcast.

A quick check of the White House Web site for Biden statements on Libya showed only press spokesman readouts of a March 22nd Biden phone call to the UAE about Libya and two other calls:

Vice President Biden spoke with United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayid al Nahyan today about developments in Libya and the region. The Vice President expressed his strong appreciation for the UAE's significant humanitarian contribution to the international effort on Libya. The Vice President and Crown Prince also discussed the importance of the unified international effort underway to enforce the measures called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and agreed to continue close coordination between the United States and UAE on this issue.

Biden also made two other low-profile phone calls to foreign leaders about Libya, but apparently has not made any public statements of support.

Biden took a phone call about Libya from Obama while the president was on his Spring Break trip to Latin America and later had lunch with Obama when he returned to the White House.

A pool report in the Orlando Sentinel on March 23rd about a Biden fundraising speech for Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida that day noted Biden's failure to speak out about the administration's attack on Libya:

Biden never mentioned Libya and only talked about the budget fight in broad terms.

The New York Times White House reporter Helene Cooper definitively said Biden was opposed to military intervention in Libya, while the others on the panel Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post, Elisabeth Bumiller of the N.Y. Times and Major Garrett of the National Journal offered their opinions about Biden's opposition.

Cooper: "Biden was on the side of the milit--was against the military on the Afghanistan debate and he was definitely with the military and with Gates saying that, you know, we should be very cautious here."

Fineman noted Biden's "invisibility says a lot." Bumiller said it was "consistent" with Biden's opposition to the surge in Afghanistan. Garrett joked Biden "was afraid of a big blankety mistake."

Earlier, in the "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" segment, Cooper said, "The United States has gone, uh, went to war in Libya to in part protect the democracy protests, protests and the rebel movement there. The reality is in the White House, and John Brennan in particular, (is) really, really concerned about, that we don't know who these, these rebels are and that some of them may have ties to al Qaeda in the Maghreb.'

Matthews replied to Cooper's news with a deflated, "Oh, great."


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 04:32:10 AM
Libya proves how phony war protest was: Obama's actions belie his words about the Iraq war
The Charleston Daily Mail ^ | March 23, 2011 | Don Surber





IF a few billion dollars' worth of cruise missiles, bombs and jet fuel rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi, then it is money well spent.

But there are sharp contrasts between President Bush's painful decision to invade Iraq and President Obama's unauthorized attack on Libya exactly eight years later, and the differences should not go unnoticed.

Obama contradicts himself.

In 2002, he delivered a stirring speech against the war in Iraq.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression," Obama said.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Back in 2002, Obama also said Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history," Obama said.

Dustbin of history?

Tell that to Fidel Castro. Kim Jong-Il.

Heck, tell it to Gadhafi, who seized control of Libya on my 16th birthday.

I am now 57.

Maybe in 2002 Obama was simply young and foolish.

But five years later, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, showed how little he had learned.

"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," Obama said to reporter Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe.

"As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States.

"In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

"History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

President Obama on Saturday did everything the left falsely accused Bush of doing in Iraq.

Bush had a Coalition of the Willing of 30 nations, including the fledgling government of Afghanistan; its bases were crucial to the mission.

Obama went into Libya with only 16 allies.

Bush made the final decision to invade Iraq with congressional approval after six months of debate.

President Obama acted in the case of Libya without any national debate or congressional approval.

A few diehards on the left - Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore and the like - protested against the attack on Libya, but most liberals are silent.

The New York Times, in an editorial, even praised Obama, ignoring the issue of congressional approval

Do not get me wrong. Obama was wrong in 2002. The War Powers Act of 1973 indeed authorizes Obama to take action.

In 1986, President Reagan used the same War Powers Act to order a raid on Libya. Liberals were outraged.

This is "foreign relations as conceptualized by Lewis Carroll: the United States is virtually at war with Libya and American reporters are covering events in the enemy country," one newspaper editorial said at the time.

"Under this absurd circumstance couldn't the United States have devised some plan other than terror to convince Khadafy (sic) that terror is a tactic unprofitable for all?"

That newspaper was silent on President Obama's even larger attack on the same nation 25 years later.

I thank President Obama for not only going after Gadhafi, but also for exposing what a bunch of hypocrites he and most of his supporters are.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 04:57:47 AM
NBC's Maceda: After Obama Speech, Gaddafi Likely 'Feeling A Lot Better'
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein


Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:47:05

Many here at home may have criticized President Obama's speech last night on Libya. But abroad, there was at least one man who dug PBO's remarks: Muammar Gaddafi . . .

That was the educated estimation of NBC's Jim Maceda, reporting from Libya, reporting on Morning Joe today. It was PBO's failure to call for regime change that would have buoyed Gaddafi, says Maceda. He reported that regime officials are acting much more "bellicose" and "defiant" in the wake of the president's speech.

View video here.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 05:25:44 AM
President Obama takes swipe at Bush, rewrites history in speech on Libya
examiner.com ^ | 3/28/2011 | Joe Newby




Apparently, liberals are incapable of giving a speech without bashing former President Bush. President Obama is no exception.

While addressing the nation on the military action in Libya, the President took a gratuitous jab at the former President - and attempted to rewrite history in the process.

According to a transcript at the White House website, the President said:

The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

The President's attack on the Iraq war trivialized the sacrifices made by the thousands who served freeing the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

Additionally, while American forces were engaged in combat operations for eight years, it was just a little under two years from the start of "shock and awe" in March 2003 to the first democratic elections in January 2005 - not eight years as the President asserted.


(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 08:11:28 AM
Posted at 10:45 PM ET, 03/28/2011
A fundamentally dishonest speech
By Marc A. Thiessen


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-fundamentally-dishonest-speech/2011/03/28/AFC0NfrB_blog.html





President Obama gave an impassioned, sometimes eloquent, defense of his policies in Libya tonight.  But when it came to justifying the limited goals of the military mission, his speech was fundamentally dishonest.  Obama presented himself as standing between two extremes — those on the one hand, who want to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe, and those on the other who want to invade Libya the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq.  The president declared:

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — would be better off with Qaddafi out of power.  I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.  But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone — carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.  It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.  If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter.  We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air.  The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater.  So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.  Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future.  But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars.  That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

This is a straw man, and the president knows it.  No serious person is arguing that we should “repeat in Libya” what we did in Iraq.  No serious person is arguing that we should send hundreds of thousands of ground troops to march on Tripoli and topple Moammar Gaddafi they way we marched on Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein. What serious people are suggesting is that we help the Libyan resistance topple Gaddafi’s regime — not by sending American ground forces to do it for them, but by providing them with arms, training, intelligence and air support.  The Libyan rebels were well on their way to marching on Tripoli, until Obama’s dithering at the United Nations gave Gaddafi time to drive them back to the gates of Benghazi.  Now they are pushing west again, taking back towns and cities along the coast from pro-Gaddafi forces en route to the Libyan capital. How will Obama handle their offensive? Will he target Gaddafi’s forces if they push back against this rebel offensive? Will he provide air cover to the rebels as they march toward Tripoli?  If he does not provide air cover, and the regime stops the rebel offensive, how will he handle the resulting stalemate?  Will American air power protect liberated enclaves of Libya from Gaddafi’s forces, the same way we protected liberated enclaves in northern Iraq from Saddam Hussein?  If so, for how long?  A year?  Five years? A decade?  More?  We don’t know the answers to such questions, because the president spent all his time today shooting down arguments for military action in Libya that no one is making.

 

Another moment of dishonesty came when Obama described the “transfer” of the mission to NATO:

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone.  Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.  This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday.  Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.   

The president failed to mention what this means in practice: Come Wednesday we will transfer responsibility for the mission in Libya from an American general (Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command) to an American admiral (James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander-Europe).  He might also have mentioned the other mission that we have handed over to NATO — the mission in Afghanistan.  Feel like responsibility for the war in Afghanistan has been handed over to our European allies?  If so, you’ll love the transfer of responsibility for the war in Libya.   

Such dishonesty is unfortunate, because the success of our intervention in Libya is critical.  Until Sept. 11, the worst terrorist attack on Americans was the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, carried out on the direct orders of Moammar Gaddafi.  If Gaddafi survives, he will not be the benign dictator who capitulated to the West and gave up his programs for weapons of mass destruction after seeing Saddam Hussein pulled from a spider hole.  And if our mission in Libya remains as limited as the president suggested tonight, the chances of Gaddafi’s survival will only grow.  It would have been nice if the president had addressed these real challenges, instead of wrestling with fictional ones.

By Marc A. Thiessen  |  10:45 PM ET, 03/28/2011



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 08:30:52 AM
Skip to comments.

Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf
Washington Examiner ^ | 3/29/11 | Byron York




Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 09:03:04 AM
Susan Rice: Obama Administration Has Not Ruled Out Military Support for Libyan Rebels
CNSNews ^ | March 29, 2011 | Susan Jones




(CNSNews.com) – U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice says the Obama administration has not ruled out military support for the Libyan rebels.

“We have not made that decision, George, but we’ve not certainly ruled that out,” Rice told “Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday morning. She did not answer a question about whether military support would include arming the rebels.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Source: MSNBC

A senior administration official says that NATO will not likely take command and control of the overall mission in Libya on Wednesday (as President Obama announced in his speech last night) -- that the full transition will likely be delayed.

The transition will be pushed further in the week, but "no more than a day or two," the official said, adding that this is "not unexpected" and "not unusual."

The official said that media reports of delays "are legit, but minor in the big picture," adding that the process "will take just a bit longer to play out."

"It is a major muscle movement," the official said.

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/29/6368414...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: dario73 on March 29, 2011, 09:05:59 AM
What a disaster if al Qaeda takes over Lybia.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 01:31:42 PM
US launches fresh barrage of missiles at Tripoli
msnbc.msn.com ^ | 1 hour 58 minutes ago | msnbc.com staff




TRIPOLI, Libya — U.S. ships and submarines unleashed a barrage of cruise missiles at Libyan missile storage facilities in the Tripoli area late Monday and early Tuesday, an official said.

Later Tuesday, missiles targeted the tightly guarded residence of leader Moammar Gadhafi and military targets in the suburb of Tajura as NATO-led coalition aircraft were seen in the skies.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. military details, said 22 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the Mediterranean — the most in at least several days.

The latest U.S. barrage raised to well over 200 the number of Tomahawks that have been fired at Libya since the Western military intervention began March 19.

The bulk of U.S. and NATO missile and bomb attacks on Libya have targeted air defenses, ammunition bunkers and other facilities that support Libyan ground forces and enable NATO to maintain a no-fly zone over the country.

The attack came hours after Libyan government tanks and rockets blunted a rebel assault on Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte on Tuesday and drove back the ragtag army of irregulars.

Rockets and tank fire sent Libya's rebel volunteers in a panicked scramble away from the front lines, before the opposition was able to bring up truck mounted rocket launchers of their own and return fire.


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
(Hillary Clinton) paves way to arm Libyan rebels 
 Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:56 PM by Turborama
Source: The Guardian



Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya

Nicholas Watt , chief political correspondent | Tuesday March 29 2011 19.26 BST

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country.

As Libya's opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a "work in progress".

The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya.

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-... 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on March 29, 2011, 01:40:12 PM
WTF?, How long before the "arms" make their way to Iraq or Afghanistan?

Oh and it is my interpretation that our government is full of fucking retards


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 01:50:47 PM
Arming Afghan rebels in the 80s worked out well for us.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Arming Afghan rebels in the 80s worked out well for us.  ::)

Funny - all the people attacking me on the BC issue dont say a word in this thread when i post up to date stuff.   

Where for art thou oh 240,Ozmo, Mal, KC, Holmes, Andre, etc?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 01:55:28 PM
Funny - all the people attacking me on the BC issue dont say a word in this thread when i post up to date stuff.   

Where for art thou oh 240,Ozmo, Mal, KC, Holmes, Andre, etc?

The funny thing is that those guys weren't even AQ or Taliban then as they didn't exist yet. Now we're just cutting out the middle man and giving weapons right to the terrorists.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 02:00:20 PM
So they choose to attack me on the mickey mouse issues but dont saya word on this stuff? 


got it.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 02:16:13 PM
So they choose to attack me on the mickey mouse issues but dont saya word on this stuff? 


got it.   

They're pathetic individuals. Like I said in one of the other threads today, they're not actually capable of refuting these articles/points so they instead choose to focus on something like the birthers and sling personal insults.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on March 29, 2011, 03:04:58 PM
They're pathetic individuals. Like I said in one of the other threads today, they're not actually capable of refuting these articles/points so they instead choose to focus on something like the birthers and sling personal insults.

There's nothing to refute here... Getting into Libya was absolutely the dumbest thing Obama could have done.

How the fuck did he either:

A. Get fooled into this nonsense
or
B. Actually believe this was good

Either way, it's fucked up.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 29, 2011, 03:34:29 PM
The funny thing is that those guys weren't even AQ or Taliban then as they didn't exist yet. Now we're just cutting out the middle man and giving weapons right to the terrorists.  ::)


and the new rebel leader spent the last 20 years in virgina working at an unknown job/


LMFAO... we're installing a guy.  That's my take.  Just like Karzai was installed, an oil man, right?


As far as Al-q.... this gets into CT terroitory.  Until the late 90s, they were a tool of the USA - descending from the mujahadeen, right?    Suddenly, they give us a series of war that bush/pnac desire, and they're the bad guys.

Move up 8 years, and they're suddenly our allies again as we attempt to enter another arab nation and install another US man as their leader.

Ya know, if you didn't know any better, it looks like al-Q was just a tool of the USA all along.  Of course, that's alex jones territory, and we all know that AJ only gets it right when  he points out Dems working with Al-Q for decades... cause repubs wouldn't do that ;)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 04:03:13 PM
and the new rebel leader spent the last 20 years in virgina working at an unknown job/


LMFAO... we're installing a guy.  That's my take.  Just like Karzai was installed, an oil man, right?


As far as Al-q.... this gets into CT terroitory.  Until the late 90s, they were a tool of the USA - descending from the mujahadeen, right?    Suddenly, they give us a series of war that bush/pnac desire, and they're the bad guys.

Move up 8 years, and they're suddenly our allies again as we attempt to enter another arab nation and install another US man as their leader.

Ya know, if you didn't know any better, it looks like al-Q was just a tool of the USA all along.  Of course, that's alex jones territory, and we all know that AJ only gets it right when  he points out Dems working with Al-Q for decades... cause repubs wouldn't do that ;)

Why do you insist on proving just how little reading you've done on this every time you post? He is one leader. ONE. There is no consensus among rebels and there are plenty of people down there fighting for different agendas and that guy certainly doesn't speak for everyone.  ::)

You Obama drones are some real scumbags. It astounds me how low you guys will stoop to defend this guy. It's honestly nauseating.

And I stopped reading your post at "This goes into CT territory".


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 29, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Which rebel leader ends up in charge?

my money is on the guy who hung out in Virginia the last 2 decades.

LMAO.... As it should be.  I'll be glad if/when a USA installed leader takes over the place.  The moment kadaffi blew up that plane, his country deserved to be taken over by the USA.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 04:25:51 PM
Hahaha, it's going to be hilarious when these tribes are at each other's throats and Libya devolves into full-scale civil war.

Wonder what your excuse for Obama will be then.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 29, 2011, 04:26:59 PM
i have no excuse for obama.  he saw an opening to install a puppet and took it. I hope they do install one, and I hope we pump their oil to europe in return for favors later.  Fcuk libya, really.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 05:29:13 PM
You are delusional.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2011, 06:24:07 PM
Libya Crisis Live Update: Bin Jawad falling to pro-Gaddafi forces.
www.guardian.uk.co Live Updates ^ | 29 March 2011



CNN's Ben Wedeman tweets some bad news from Brega and Ras Lanuf.

8.54pm: The see-saw battle along the Libyan coastline seems to be heading eastwards again, as most news organisations are reporting a flight by rebel fighters and the towns of Ras Lanauf and Bin Jawad are falling back into the hands of the pro-Gaddafi forces.  

Here's a map to help the geographically challenged like me:



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on March 29, 2011, 06:31:23 PM
i sw the NBC reporter embedded with the rebels (no question which side the US media is on!) complaining that there wasn't enough air support.

maybe the US is letting the sides kill each other off for a few weeks/months or even years... the "winner" will be so far maimed they'll be a pussycat in negotiations with us.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 06:33:49 PM
Libya Crisis Live Update: Bin Jawad falling to pro-Gaddafi forces.
www.guardian.uk.co Live Updates ^ | 29 March 2011



CNN's Ben Wedeman tweets some bad news from Brega and Ras Lanuf.

8.54pm: The see-saw battle along the Libyan coastline seems to be heading eastwards again, as most news organisations are reporting a flight by rebel fighters and the towns of Ras Lanauf and Bin Jawad are falling back into the hands of the pro-Gaddafi forces.  

Here's a map to help the geographically challenged like me:



Haha. Talk about incompetence.

i sw the NBC reporter embedded with the rebels (no question which side the US media is on!) complaining that there wasn't enough air support.

maybe the US is letting the sides kill each other off for a few weeks/months or even years... the "winner" will be so far maimed they'll be a pussycat in negotiations with us.

By "us", do you mean the French, English and Italian masters that Obama answers to?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 29, 2011, 06:34:40 PM
Hahaha, it's going to be hilarious when these tribes are at each other's throats and Libya devolves into full-scale civil war.

Wonder what your excuse for Obama will be then.


you are reaching again as usual...why would it be Obama's fault?..he didn't incite the Libyans to riot..they did that on their own....I hate to keep calling you out because you seem to be an intelligent guy but you keep letting your hatred for Obama affect your objectivity....why  not blame Obama for the earthquake in Japan while you're at it...and of course its Obama's fault that the nuclear reactors over there are in meltdown


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 06:37:26 PM

you are reaching again as usual...why would it be Obama's fault?..he didn't incite the Libyans to riot..they did that on their own....I hate to keep calling you out because you seem to be an intelligent guy but you keep letting your hatred for Obama affect your objectivity....why  not blame Obama for the earthquake in Japan while you're at it...and of course its Obama's fault that the nuclear reactors over there are in meltdown

Are you joking? I'm asking that with a straight face.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 29, 2011, 06:40:07 PM
Are you joking? I'm asking that with a straight face.

sigh.................... ............... :-\...you never learn


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 29, 2011, 06:41:43 PM
sigh.................... ............... :-\...you never learn

Pot meet kettle, you ignorant douche. You already embarrassed yourself on Egypt. Do you really want to go down that road again?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on March 29, 2011, 06:47:31 PM
Pot meet kettle, you ignorant douche. You already embarrassed yourself on Egypt. Do you really want to go down that road again?


How did I embarrass myself on Egypt???...gotta hear this one


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 10:59:44 AM

How did I embarrass myself on Egypt???...gotta hear this one

Did Obama Call the Libyan Situation a ‘Turd Sandwich?’ (NBC Anchor Says ‘Yes’)
The Blaze ^ | 30 Mar 2011 | Mike Opelka



Don’t call it a Kinetic Military Action!

Yet another neck-snapping moment provided by one of the MSNBC anchors.

Savannah Guthrie was part of the ‘panel’ on Meet The Press this past Sunday and she gave us all one for the video clip file. This was all happening in advance of the President’s Monday night address to the nation. ‘And the President is obviously not happy with his set of choices. One person told me, in a meeting he called this military action in Libya a ‘turd sandwich’ but he was quoting one of his national security aides who likes to use that term.’

If you just want the short clip. . . here is the instant replay of Savannah’s last sentence;

Can you imagine what the reaction if an American president described the situation he faced as a ‘turd sandwich?’ Part of me wants the President to be that honest with the American people, and another part wonders how many of us would be able to handle that much honesty?


(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 11:58:45 AM
Old WH Twitter Posts: US Glad to take "Unilateral" Action in Libya, "Gaddafi Must Leave"
Pundit Press ^ | 3/30/2011 | Aurelius




At first, President Obama was silent on the rebellion in Libya. In a wave of protests and revolts against authoritarian rulers in the region, it appeared that the President did not know quite what to say. Eventually, however, Mr. Obama found the ability to talk a good game.

By late February, the President had come out against Gaddafi. However, it was much different from what the President is saying today. If you've watched or listened to the President in the last few weeks, he has been heavily touting his internationalism, his wish to always run things by the UN before he acts, and his statements that Gaddafi may stay in power.

For example, on February 25, the White House tweeted:



Gasp! The United States taking unilateral sanctions! How dare we? I could have sworn the President said this on Monday night: [W]e should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves.


(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 12:08:16 PM
Bama is apparently signing up for an escalation. 


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 12:52:45 PM
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels
 4:24pm EDT
By Mark Hosenball


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.

While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.

SPECIFIC OPERATIONS

People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.

In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.

Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.

"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.

Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.

According to an article speculating on possible U.S. covert actions in Libya published early in March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, a covert action is "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."

ARMS SUPPLIES

The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."

U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by David Storey)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 06:53:49 PM
Sec. Clinton: WH Needs "No Congressional Authorization" for Future Decisions on Libya
Pundit Press ^ | 3/30/11 | Aurelius



Whether you support the overthrow of Dictator Maummar Gaddafi or not, the administration's handling of the situation cannot be described other than horrendous. First, according to critics, the President dithered for over a month on what to do in Libya. He waited for the Arab League to act, then the United Nations...

Now, according to the President, the War Powers Act allows the President, at least in the short term, to order the attack, bombing, or infiltration of a foreign country without even notifying Congress, let alone waiting for their approval. That is a nice line and all, but apparently that's all it is: a line.

According to legislators who were in a meeting with Secretary Clinton today, she told them:

[T]he administration acted within the requirements of the War Powers Act and needed no congressional authorization for further decisions on the mission.  

Let me emphasize that for a moment: the administration needs no congressional authorization for further decisions on the "kinetic military action" in Libya? What does that mean exactly? Does that mean that, should the President want to expand the attack, he simply can without approval? Does that mean that, according to this Administration's interpretation of the War Power's Act, that the President can declare war unilaterally?


(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on March 30, 2011, 06:55:39 PM
Haha, a week later and this thing is spiraling out of control. Forces on the ground. Arming the rebels. Already well past a NFZ and into a bombing campaign aiming to help the rebels.

What a pathetic clusterfuck.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 30, 2011, 07:20:38 PM

Undisciplined Libyan rebels no match for Gaddafi's forces
The Guardian ^ | 3/30/11 | Chris McGreal




If there's an ammunition shortage, no one has told Khalif Saed. He was firing off a large machine gun welded to the back of a pick up truck, sending the contents of the heavy belt of bullets darting through the weapon and in to an empty sky. It's a regular enough occurrence on the open desert road along which Libya's conflict has swung back and forth through this month. Sometimes the stream of fire is celebratory, as earlier this week when it was falsely claimed that Muammar Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte had fallen.


(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 31, 2011, 07:09:04 AM
March 30, 2011, 1:11 pm
The President’s Credibility Gap
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/the-presidents-credibility-gap/?emc=eta1



Addressing the nation Monday evening, President Obama suggested that the United States was in the process of reducing its military footprint in Libya, even as he explicitly rejected the idea of pursuing regime change in Tripoli by force of arms. Both statements seemed calculated to make our intervention seem tightly limited rather than open-ended. (“I want to be clear,” Obama said. “The United States of America has done what we said we would do.”) But two days later, both look dubious in the extreme.

No sooner had the president finished speaking than the Times’s Eric Schmitt came out with a story undercutting the idea that America can be just be one partner among many in the Libyan operation. (American military involvement, Schmitt reported, “is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than was previously known.”) The next day in London, representatives of the allied powers took turns insisting that regime change was, in fact, the coalition’s goal in Libya. And 24 hours later, with Qaddafi’s forces counterattacking and the rebels falling back in disarray, American policymakers find themselves furiously debating whether our air campaign needs to be supplemented by an effort to arm the rebels directly — which would obviously represent a further escalation of the conflict, and one that would arguably fall outside the United Nations mandate that we claim to be enforcing.

Does it matter that Obama’s words don’t really seem to match his administration’s actions? There’s an argument that it doesn’t, advanced by Stephen Walt and Kevin Drum among others. “In the end,” Drum suggests, “Obama will be judged on whether his approach works,” rather what he says or doesn’t say about it. Likewise Walt: “Because this was clearly a war of choice, what matters is not the justification that he provided for it or the ways he attempted to assuage concerns about possible precedents … What matters is what actually happens in Libya over the next few weeks or months.”

Now in the broad sense it’s true that nothing matters in warmaking as much as the outcome. But if and when things do go wrong in war — or if and when they turn messy and long-running and inconclusive, as seems all too likely in this case — it usually goes harder on politicians if they’ve been less than honest about the nature and scope of the conflict, what the risks might be, and how deeply the United States is willing to commit itself. Here I think Peter Feaver’s point is well taken:

Alas, the president only talked about optimistic scenarios. The obligatory gestures about a “difficult task”  – “Libya will remain dangerous…”; “Forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions” — barely scratched the surface of what could go wrong here. I did not expect the president to run down the “dirty dozen” list of bad things that might happen. That is the work of strategic planning shops. But I did expect more steeling of the American public for possible adverse developments.

Should those developments come, I suspect it will be worse for Obama politically if he’s perceived to have misled the public about what America is getting into in North Africa. And on the evidence of the last 48 hours, that’s precisely what he did on Monday night.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 01, 2011, 04:22:14 AM
A Community Organizer Goes to War
Townhall.com ^ | April 1, 2011 | Pat Buchanan




Now that Benghazi has been spared what we were assured would be a massacre by Moammar Gadhafi's army, why are the U.S. Air Force, Navy, CIA and Special Forces still attacking in Libya?

If our objective was to spare the defenseless people of Benghazi from slaughter, why, mission accomplished, did we not stop bombing? Why are we plunging deeper in?

Did Gadhafi attack us? Did he attack a NATO country, thereby triggering Article 5 of the treaty requiring us to go to war? Have his forces carried out massacres of such magnitude in recaptured towns and cities as to morally mandate our humanitarian intervention?

Where? What has Gadhafi done in any rebel city that has fallen to him to compare with what Syria's Hafez al-Assad did in Hama, when he rolled up his artillery in 1982 and slaughtered between 10,000 and 20,000 to teach the Moslem Brotherhood a lesson in loyalty?

Not a decade after Hama, Assad was the welcome ally of George H.W. Bush in Desert Storm.

With Benghazi secure, by what right did we attack the Libyan soldiers defending Ras Januf, Brega and Sirte? What crimes were they committing by defending their cities from rebel attack and their government from being overthrown by force and violence?

Is this not what all soldiers take an oath to do?

None of this is written in defense of Gadhafi, a loathsome man and murderer of innocents, but to ask: Why is this small civil war in a North African desert country America's war?

The White House will not even concede America is at war. And understandably so. For that would trigger follow-up questions.

If we are at war with Libya, who started it? What was the casus belli requiring us to go to war? Did Libyan troops attack U.S. citizens or ships in the Mediterranean? Who is the aggressor in this war?

The truth: America is fighting another war of choice in Libya, and this one without any constitutional sanction. Congress not only did not declare this war, Congress was not even consulted.

Yet, once begun, wars create new political realities.

Now that Obama and Hillary Clinton have declared that Gadhafi must go, and U.S. military power has been put massively in on the side of the rebels, Gadhafi cannot win without Obama losing face and the United States being humiliated.

Saving Obama's face and preserving our superpower image may be the cause for which we kill a number of Libyans who did nothing to us.

There is, however, a more compelling reason Gadhafi must go.

Should he survive our drive to dethrone and kill him with that cruise missile into his compound the first night of our attack, he is likely to return the favor, as he did at Lockerbie after Ronald Reagan's 1986 attack on his compound.

Should Gadhafi retain power at the end of this war, with friends and family dead, how safe will U.S. airliners be on the North Atlantic run? If, as Reagan rightly said, Gadhafi is the "mad dog of the Middle East," can you leave such a wounded and rabid animal alive?

Our intervention raises other questions that should have been asked and answered before Obama plunged us into this civil war.

Absent some lucky air or cruise missile strike, how do we remove him from power? How do we de-claw him so we do not awaken some morning to a horrific reprisal on U.S. citizens for what we did to him?

The rebel army is not up to it. It did not just retreat from Sirte after tribal forces joined the Libyan army to repel them. It fled in a Mad Max rout, abandoning town after town until some rebels had fled all the way back to Benghazi.

Even with the United States and NATO imposing a no-fly and no-drive zone on Gadhafi's army, the rebel army is not a force that can march to Tripoli and depose him. And it is unlikely to become such a force anytime soon. The rebels lack the arms, training, equipment and numbers to march 600 miles and capture and hold half a dozen towns along the way against hostile tribes and Libyan troops.

Who, then, is going to do it?

Obama has said we will not put boots on the ground. But if we don't put U.S. advisers in, who will train, arm and lead the rebels? The Germans and Turks want no part of this war. The most bellicose allies, Britain and France, had a hellish time in Bosnia before the Americans came and pulled their chestnuts out of the fire.

As for the Arab League, Qatar has sent a few planes, but where is the Egyptian army, half a million strong and right next door? Why is Arabs fighting Arabs an American rather than an Arab problem?

The truth: There is no "international community." There is Uncle Sam. He does it, or it does not get done.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 01, 2011, 08:25:19 AM
U.S. Documents: Obama-Backed Libyan Rebels Prior Tactic to Rebel Against Gaddafi Regime – Kill American Soldiers in Iraq…

(ABC News)- Less than four years before Libya’s popular opposition movement took up arms and revolted against Moammar Gadhafi with enthusiastic U.S. backing, anti-Gadhafi fighters chose another tactic to hit back at the hated dictator: they joined al Qaeda and tried to kill American soldiers in Iraq, according to U.S. documents.

In 2007 the U.S. Department of Defense snatched more than 600 records of al Qaeda’s foreign fighters in Iraq and discovered nearly a fifth of the foreigners were from Libya, according to a report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center released later that year. Within those records, the total put Libya second only to Saudi Arabia in total fighters and “far and away” the largest provider of foreign fighters per capita to the terrorist organization.

Almost all of the Libyan fighters hailed from the east — cities like Benghazi, effectively the current opposition headquarters; Ajdabiya, which was the site of intense fighting overnight; and Derna, a city currently held by the rebels.

“The Libyan pipeline to Iraq,” the report says, “is firmly established.”

The report ties the surge of Libyan recruits to a formal pledge of allegiance to al Qaeda by a major anti-Gadhafi group in 2007.

At the time of the report’s release, the U.S. and Gadhafi were enjoying a relative resurgence in diplomatic relations following Gadhafi’s promise in 2003 to abandon the country’s weapons of mass destruction program. The newfound cordiality convinced anti-Gadhafi groups they could fire back at Gadhafi by unleashing violent attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, according to a leaked 2008 State Department cable.

“It was ‘well-known’ that a large number of suicide bombers (invariably described as ‘martyrs’) and foreign fighters in Iraq hailed from Derna,” the cable says, describing a conversation a U.S. embassy official had with locals in Derna. “There was a strong perception, [one local] said, that the U.S. had decided in the wake of [Gadhafi's] decision to abandon WMD aspirations and renounce terrorism to support the regime to secure counter-terrorism cooperation and ensure continued oil and natural gas production.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/libya-rebel-strongholds-now-al-qaeda-wellspring/story?id=13266784&nwltr=blotter_featureMore


Quick! Better arm them with state-of-the-art weapons! They're good guys!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 01, 2011, 08:26:59 AM
President Osama, literally. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 01, 2011, 08:28:17 AM
President Osama, literally.  

Obama's message: "Kill American soldiers and we'll reward you with our best technology!"

What a sickening situation this regime has illegally put this country in.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 01, 2011, 08:30:07 AM
Obama's message: "Kill American soldiers and we'll reward you with our best technology!"

What a sickening situation this regime has illegally put this country in.

Funny how the so called "humanitarian" reasons for this are no longer discussed. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 01, 2011, 08:36:58 AM
Funny how the so called "humanitarian" reasons for this are no longer discussed. 

Yeah, funny how quickly they've gotten thrown to the way-side.

NATO had to warn the rebels yesterday that they would bomb the rebels if they were found to be killing civilians (they already have but that's besides the point). What a cluster-fuck.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 01, 2011, 11:16:57 AM
Charles Krauthammer: Syria’s ‘Reformer’ - Why the delicacy for Assad?
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | April 1, 2011 | Charles Krauthammer




Syria's 'Reformer'
Why the delicacy for Assad?



Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.

— Hillary Clinton on Bashar al-Assad, March 27

Few things said by this administration in its two years can match this one for moral bankruptcy and strategic incomprehensibility.

First, it’s demonstrably false. It was hoped that President Assad would be a reformer when he inherited his father’s dictatorship a decade ago. Being a London-educated eye doctor, he received the full Yuri Andropov treatment — the assumption that having been exposed to Western ways, he’d been Westernized. Wrong. Assad has run the same iron-fisted Alawite police state as did his father.

Bashar made promises of reform during the short-lived Arab Spring of 2005. The promises were broken. During the current brutally suppressed protests, his spokeswoman made renewed promises of reform. Then Wednesday, appearing before parliament, Assad was shockingly defiant. He offered no concessions. None.

Second, it’s morally reprehensible. Here are people demonstrating against a dictatorship that repeatedly uses live fire on its own people, a regime that in 1982 killed 20,000 in Hama and then paved the dead over. Here are insanely courageous people demanding reform — and the U.S. secretary of state tells the world that the thug ordering the shooting of innocents already is a reformer, thus effectively endorsing the Baath party line — “We are all reformers,” Assad told parliament — and undermining the demonstrators’ cause.

Third, it’s strategically incomprehensible. Sometimes you cover for a repressive ally because you need it for U.S. national security. Hence our muted words about Bahrain. Hence our slow response on Egypt. But there are rare...




(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 01, 2011, 02:13:40 PM
Libya: Gaddafi forces reject ceasefire (a dah!)
telegraph uk ^ | 4/1/2011 | By Toby Harnden





Col Gaddafi's forces have rejected a ceasefire call from Libyan rebels, saying government troops would not leave Libyan cities as demanded by the opposition.

"They are asking us to withdraw from our own cities. .... If this is not mad then I don't know what this is. We will not leave out cities," said Mussa Ibrahim, the government spokesman.

Rebels had earlier called for the ceasefire after Gaddafi forces drove them back for a third day after sandstorms and clouds hindered Nato air strikes.

Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel Interim National Council, said in a televised press conference that Gaddafi's fighters should retreat from western cities and built-up areas as part of a ceasefire deal. There was no immediate response to the offer from the Gaddafi regime.

The ceasefire was proposed after Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that American jets would not fly with Nato forces over Libya after Saturday leaving the remainder of the Nato forces to provide the air power.

The US had committed 90 aircraft to the Libyan missions. Their withdrawal leaves the remaining coalition forces, including Qatar, UAE and Sweden with 143 aircraft. Britain has 17 aircraft in operation and France has 33.


(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2011, 03:19:17 AM
Obama: 'No Amount of American Lives' Can Resolve 'Someone Else's Civil War'
CNS News ^ | 3/31/2011 | Eric Scheiner




(CNSNews.com) - During the official announcement of his presidential campaign in Chicago, then Senator Barack Obama said, “no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war.”

At the time Obama was speaking about his opposition to the war in Iraq, “Most of you know that I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake,” Obama said to a crowd at the Springfield, Illinois town square on Feb. 10, 2007.

“Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken and the young lives that could have been. America it is time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.”

The comments are very different from those in his March 28, 2011 speech. President Obama justified sending U.S. military lives into action in Libya’s civil war saying, ”Qaddafi declared he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. “



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2011, 04:07:42 AM
NATO probing reports of airstrike on Libya rebels (NATO bombing their own allies)
yahoo ^ | 4/2/2011 | By BEN HUBBARD and RYAN LUCAS



NATO said Saturday that it was investigating Libyan rebel reports that a coalition warplane had struck a rebel position that was firing into the air near the front line of the battle with Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

Rebels told The Associated Press that a group of opposition fighters was hit by an airstrike about 12 miles (20 kilometers) east of the town of Brega Friday night.

Mohammad Bedrise, a doctor in a nearby hospital, said three burned bodies had been brought in by men who said they had been hit after firing a heavy machine gun in the air in celebration. Idris Kadiki, a 38-year-old mechanical engineer, said he had seen an ambulance and three cars burning after an airstrike.

NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said the coaliton was looking into the reports.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2011, 05:09:26 AM
Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels (Obama allied with Al Qaeda terrorists)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 4/2/11 | CHARLES LEVINSON




Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city's military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

The presence of Islamists like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 02, 2011, 07:51:30 AM
Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels (Obama allied with Al Qaeda terrorists)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 4/2/11 | CHARLES LEVINSON




Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city's military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

The presence of Islamists like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


Nothing to be worried about. There is no Islamist presence among the rebels*. They just want western democracy.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 02, 2011, 07:57:32 AM
NATO probing reports of airstrike on Libya rebels (NATO bombing their own allies)
yahoo ^ | 4/2/2011 | By BEN HUBBARD and RYAN LUCAS



HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA

We're bombing both sides.  Fuck em all!  Now we're talking!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2011, 11:51:51 AM
Libyan Rebels Seek Cease-Fire After U.S. Vows to Withdraw Jets
By Thomas Penny and Patrick Donahue - Apr 1, 2011



Libya’s opposition called for a cease-fire after the U.S. said it’s withdrawing aircraft used to attack Muammar Qaddafi’s forces following adverse weather that prevented strikes allowing Libyan loyalists to push back rebels.

Libya’s rebels would accept a cease-fire if their demands for freedoms are met, said Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel National Transitional Council, during a news conference televised today from their stronghold of Benghazi. Any agreement would have to involve Qaddafi’s fighters withdrawing from cities and their surrounding areas, he said.

The rebel move comes one day after Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. jets, won’t be flying with NATO forces over Libya after April 2. Mullen said planes would be made available only if requested by NATO. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress the U.S. will “significantly ramp down our commitment” to Libya except for electronic warfare, aerial refueling and surveillance.

Rebels have been in retreat for three days as Qaddafi’s troops regain the initiative after almost two weeks of allied air strikes against them. This week’s recapture of the oil port Ras Lanuf by Qaddafi forces underscored the military weakness of his opponents. Intensive fighting continues around another oil port, Brega, which is under Libyan rebel control, Al Arabiya television reported.

“Seems to me, we are not doing everything necessary in order to achieve our policy goals and including relieving what is happening to the anti-Qaddafi forces,” Senator John McCain said at the hearing in Congress yesterday with Mullen and Gates. “I hope we don’t learn a bitter lesson from it.”

Can’t See Targets
Mullen said poor weather over the past three days in Libya meant pilots “can’t get on the targets; they can’t see the targets.”

Oil rose to a 30-month high in New York as economic data from China spurred hope of growing demand in the world’s biggest energy user and fighting in Libya fanned concern that output cuts may spread to Middle East producers. Crude for May delivery rose as much as 93 cents to $107.65 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest front- month price since Sept. 26, 2008. It was at $107.06 at 11:34 a.m. London time.

“It’s quiet today but there are snipers present and yesterday night a number of mortar rounds were fired and there was indiscriminate shelling from tanks as well,” Reda Almountasser, a resident in the western city of Misrata whose residents rose up against Qaddafi and have defied efforts by his forces to regain control, said in a telephone interview.

Rebel Leaders
U.S. political and military leaders said they’re unwilling to start providing arms and training for rebels fighting against Qaddafi. Mullen said there are “plenty of countries who have the ability, the arms, the skill set to be able to do this.” Gates said the U.S. doesn’t know enough about the insurgent groups beyond a “handful” of leaders.

“The rebels need more heavy weapons,” said Jan Techau, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Brussels and a former analyst at the NATO Defense College. “They need simple stuff -- not high-tech weaponry that requires extensive training and would be dangerous if it fell into terrorist hands.”

The conflict in Libya, which began as a wave of anti- government protests similar to those in Egypt and Tunisia, escalated into armed conflict as the country’s army split and some soldiers joined the rebels. Oil prices have risen more than 25 percent since fighting began in mid-February.

‘Desperation, Fear’
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said the defection of Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa on March 30 is evidence of “the desperation and the fear right at the heart of the crumbling and rotten Qaddafi regime.” He said the former minister hasn’t been offered immunity. The Scottish prosecutor’s office said it wanted to interview Koussa about the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people.

While dozens of Libyan diplomats have quit since the uprising against Qaddafi began, Koussa is one of the most senior officials to flee. Libya’s former deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said more diplomats and senior-ranking Libyans are likely to defect from the Qaddafi regime “within days,” Sky News reported, adding that up to 10 top Libyan officials may abandon the regime.

Another senior Libyan official, Mohammed Ismail, visited London in recent days for confidential talks, the Guardian reported today citing unidentified U.K. officials.

Gates said he saw several end-game scenarios involving Qaddafi.

‘Family Kills Him’
“One is that a member of his own family kills him, or one of his inner circle kills him, or the military fractures, or the opposition, with the degradation of Qaddafi’s military capabilities rise up again,” Gates said.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization jets carried out more than 90 missions yesterday, Charles Bouchard, the Canadian air force general commanding the operation, said via videolink from Naples, Italy. A total of 20 of the 28 member states of the alliance are expected to contribute forces in the initial stages, NATO said. Germany has declined to take part.

Qaddafi said Western air strikes could lead to a war between Christians and Muslims that could spiral out of control, Sky News reported, citing a statement by the Libyan leader broadcast by state television.

To contact the reporters on this story: Thomas Penny in London at tpenny@bloomberg.net; Patrick Donahue in Berlin at Pdonahue1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net
.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 03, 2011, 01:09:10 PM
Libya: Stalemate around Libyan oil town of Brega
bbc.co.uk/ ^ | April 3 2011 | BBC




The east Libyan oil town of Brega has seen continued fighting between rebels and forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.

A BBC correspondent near the town says an uneasy stalemate is developing, days after a Nato air strike on a rebel convoy killed at least 13 people.


(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 03, 2011, 02:39:16 PM

NATO to U.S.: We Need More Strikes in Libya
U.S. Agrees to Continue Combat Missions; Lack of U.S. Strikes Blamed for Rebel Losses


WASHINGTON, April 3, 2011

 NATO has asked the United States to continue
participating in airstrikes over Libya through late
Monday, ABC News has learned.

This was done to make up for the bad weather earlier
in the week that had hampered targeting of Gadhafi
forces and allowed them to push the rebels back to
Ajdabiyah.

The United States was supposed to have significantly
begun dropping its participation in airstrikes over
Libya.

"Due to poor weather conditions over the last few
days in Libya, the United States has approved a
request by NATO to extend the use of some U.S. strike
aircraft," NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told
ABC News. "These aircraft will continue to conduct
and support Alliance air-to-ground missions
throughout this weekend."

A U.S. Defense Department official said the aircraft
Lungescu was referring to are the A-10 Thunderbolt
jets, Marine AV-8 Harrier jets and AC-130 gunships,
which are the best suited for striking ground force
targets.

During testimony on Capitol Hill Thursday, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said that beginning
Saturday these aircraft would be on stand-by mode if
NATO commanders requested them. That appears to
have happened.

Several senators at Thursday's hearing were upset to
hear the news, saying U.S. timing to scale back
participation was unfortunate given the ongoing rout
of the rebels.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sarcastically called the
timing "exquisite."

Another Defense official said the NATO request was
specifically tied to making up for the bad weather that
"prohibited strikes from being as effective as they
might have been and allowed Gadhafi's forces to take
 advantage and regain territory."

This official said there was no drop off in U.S. strike
participation as had been anticipated.

New numbers show there was not a dropoff in U.S.
flights Saturday.

Through 6 a.m. ET, there were 81 U.S. flights,
including 40 strike flights and 40 support missions.

Three Harrier jets were involved in missions Saturday,
a Defense official said.

A number of U.S. combat forces had been scheduled
cease operations today, including U.S. Navy
destroyers and submarines that have been launching
Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.

Military experts said that America's reduced role in
enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone could cripple efforts
to keep Gadhafi's forces from battering the rag-tag
army trying to topple him.

They said they fear that without U.S. willingness to go
after Gadhafi's troops and equipment from the air,
and without U.S. ground controllers pinpointing
targets, the effort to shield the rebels will fail.

 advertisement  By LUIS MARTINEZ


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 03, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
April 3, 2011
Obama's 'Bloodbath': Can We Believe the Hype?
By Steve Chapman



Remember when a crusading president, acting on dubious intelligence, insufficient information and exaggerated fears, took the nation into a Middle Eastern war of choice? That was George W. Bush in 2003, invading Iraq. But it's also Barack Obama in 2011, attacking Libya.

For weeks, President Obama had been wary of military action. What obviously changed his mind was the fear that Moammar Gadhafi was bent on mass slaughter -- which stemmed from Gadhafi's March 17 speech vowing "no mercy" for his enemies.

 
In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."

But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them" -- but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.

"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."

Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is among those unconvinced by Obama's case. "Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured -- Zawiyah, Misratah, Ajdabiya -- which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed Third World counter-insurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia or even Kosovo after NATO intervention."

The rebels, however, knew that inflating their peril was their best hope for getting outside help. So, Kuperman says, they concocted the specter of genocide -- and Obama believed it, or at least used it to justify intervention.

Another skeptic is Paul Miller, an assistant professor at National Defense University who served on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama. "The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group," he wrote on the Foreign Policy website. "The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ... The first is murder, the second is war."

When I contacted Miller, he discounted the talk of vast slaughter. "Benghazi is the second-largest city in the country, and he needs the city and its people to continue functioning and producing goods for his impoverished country," he said.

Maybe these analysts are mistaken, but the administration has offered little in the way of rebuttal. Where Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to make the case against Saddam Hussein, Obama has treated the evidence about Gadhafi as too obvious to dispute.

I e-mailed the White House press office several times asking for concrete evidence of the danger, based on any information the administration may have. But a spokesman declined comment.

That's a surprising omission, given that a looming holocaust was the centerpiece of the president's case for war. Absent specific, reliable evidence, we have to wonder if the president succumbed to unwarranted panic over fictitious dangers.

Bush had a host of reasons (or pretexts) for invading Iraq. But Obama has only one good excuse for the attack on Libya -- averting mass murder. That gives the administration a special obligation to document the basis for its fears.

Maybe it can. Plenty of experts think Obama's worries were justified. But so far, the White House message has been: Trust us.

Sorry, but we've tried that before. In 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice waved off doubts about Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right now, the Benghazi bloodbath looks like Obama's mushroom cloud.

schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/03/obamas_bloodbath_can_we_believe_the_hype_109429.html at April 03, 2011 - 08:17:36 PM CDT


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 03, 2011, 05:20:34 PM
I've been thinking about those claims of "massacre" a bit. All these claims of civilians being massacred and yet there isn't a single video showing any sort of said massacre. I have, however, seen videos popping up from Syria and other places of civilians being shot in the streets and what not. Pretty much everywhere but Libya.

I wonder why that is?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 03, 2011, 05:25:42 PM
Because bama lied his ass off to get us in to this so he can help al queada and the mb. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 03, 2011, 06:34:57 PM
How does the USA reconcile this? Explain this to me...
Fox 'blogs ^ | Sunday, April 3, 2011 | Greta Van Susteren



In the last 3 days, more than 1000 people have been massacred in Ivory Coast. Far less were killed in Libya and we joined with other nations to do air strikes, no fly zones etc. in Libya. We have not done that in Ivory Coast.

President Obama said we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons. (1000 massacred in 3 days is a humanitarian crisis.)

How do we reconcile the inactivity in Ivory Coast? And I am not suggesting we should go in (I don't have the answer.)

I am trying to figure out how the Administration justifies the disparate treatment between Libya and Ivory Coast.

Is it because the Europeans are so dependent on oil from Libya? and that is why we joined them in Libya? they lured us into it?

I don't pretend to have the answer.....let me repeat, I am merely trying to figure out why the different treatment for the citizens of Libya versus the citizens of Ivory Coast.


(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.blogs.foxnews. com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 03, 2011, 06:55:37 PM
How does the USA reconcile this? Explain this to me...
Fox 'blogs ^ | Sunday, April 3, 2011 | Greta Van Susteren



In the last 3 days, more than 1000 people have been massacred in Ivory Coast. Far less were killed in Libya and we joined with other nations to do air strikes, no fly zones etc. in Libya. We have not done that in Ivory Coast.

President Obama said we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons. (1000 massacred in 3 days is a humanitarian crisis.)

How do we reconcile the inactivity in Ivory Coast? And I am not suggesting we should go in (I don't have the answer.)

I am trying to figure out how the Administration justifies the disparate treatment between Libya and Ivory Coast.

Is it because the Europeans are so dependent on oil from Libya? and that is why we joined them in Libya? they lured us into it?

I don't pretend to have the answer.....let me repeat, I am merely trying to figure out why the different treatment for the citizens of Libya versus the citizens of Ivory Coast.


(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.blogs.foxnews. com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1,000 isn't important enough to Obama when the French or English have no oil to steal. Come back when it's 1,000,000 like Rwanda.  ::)

Syria: Assad is a "reformer"
Ivory Coast: *crickets*

A true foreign policy. He'll go down as worse than even Carter.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 03, 2011, 07:39:19 PM
Because bama lied his ass off to get us in to this so he can help al queada and the mb. 

You seriously believe this?

I just think he's being stupid... Listening to some morons. You don't really believe he did this to help AQ?

You think that? Honestly?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 04, 2011, 02:39:25 AM
You seriously believe this?

I just think he's being stupid... Listening to some morons. You don't really believe he did this to help AQ?

You think that? Honestly?

I warned you guys he was nuts...I'm trying to find out where he lives so I can send an ambulance..he seriously needs a straightjacket


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 02:42:08 AM
1000000 percent I believe that.  You need to stop being so naïve as to who obama actually is. He is trying to collapse the me so he can make way for a pan islamist caliphate.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 02:43:19 AM
1000000 percent I believe that.  You need to stop being so naïve as to who obama actually is. He is trying to collapse the me so he can make way for a pan islamist caliphate.   

Hmm why doesnt he start in the US then after all he is the pres?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 02:45:05 AM
He already has.  Go check out my thread on this. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 02:47:12 AM
He is pretty bad at it then he has been the pres for 2 years and i see no sign of the US turning into a muslim califat


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 02:53:37 AM
I didn't mean it that way.  Obama is intentionally trying to collapse the nation and demoralize the citizenry so that they will accept socialism / communism and his nwo visions.  As for the islamist stuff, he supported the ground zero mosque, has the doj defending three week vacations to the hajj, etc.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 03:00:27 AM
What makes you think that people will follow his lead if he collapses the nation?

If he does collapse the nation wont people look to others for leadership?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 03:05:21 AM
Desperate people will accept anything. 

Did you see the food stamp numbers I posted?  Obama is the ultimate poverty pimp. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 03:07:44 AM
Desperate people will accept anything. 

Did you see the food stamp numbers I posted?  Obama is the ultimate poverty pimp. 

Poverty pimp?

Please explain


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 04, 2011, 03:09:25 AM
the more rich ppl there are, the better repubs do.

the more poor ppl, the better dems do.

is this breaking news somehow?  did it really not sink in until 2011?  LOL


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 03:09:41 AM
Desperate people will accept anything. 

Did you see the food stamp numbers I posted?  Obama is the ultimate poverty pimp. 

I have a hard time believing the us will vote for Obama if he collapses the nation.
Any candidate will beat him if thats the case.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 03:13:21 AM
the more rich ppl there are, the better repubs do.

the more poor ppl, the better dems do.

is this breaking news somehow?  did it really not sink in until 2011?  LOL

Thats bull the ones who win elections are the people backed by the rich.

Air time wins election it doesnt matter if people are rich or poor they will vote for the dream/fantasy they are presented with.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 03:15:09 AM
Rich people put bama in power. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 03:26:37 AM
Rich people put bama in power. 

The rich put any pres in power im afraid so how is he a poverty pimp?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 03:36:25 AM
For real? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 04:38:52 AM
You make the claim that he is sucking up to the poor people to get elected right?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 04:49:16 AM
You make the claim that he is sucking up to the poor people to get elected right?

Obama's coalition: 

Rich liberal CT, NY, MA, FL, NJ Jews for their money.

95% of blacks since they will vote for him like last time.

Welfare recepients since he keeps the spigots opened.

Uber wealthy like - Gates, Buffett, Soros, etc

Guilt ridden whites - mostly dopers, hippies, college aged idiots,etc.   

65% hispanics

75% govt employees     


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on April 04, 2011, 04:57:56 AM
Sounds about right.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 06:07:19 AM
Libya: Former Guantánamo detainee is training rebels
The Telegraph ^ | 4/3/2011 | Nick Allen





Former detainee at Guantánamo Bay has taken a leading role in the military opposition to Col Muammar Gaddafi, it has emerged, alongside at least one other former Afghan Mujahideen fighter.

Rebel recruits in the eastern port city of Derna are being trained by Sufyan Bin Qumu, a Libyan who was arrested following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and held at Guantánamo for six years.



Port city of Derna, Libya


Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi, a senior Libyan rebel commander in Derna, was also held following the invasion of Afghanistan and handed over to Libyan custody two months later.

Both men were said to have been released from prison in Libya in 2008 as part of a reconciliation process with Islamists in the country.

Mr Qumu, 51, a Libyan army veteran, was accused by the US government of working as a truck driver for a company owned by Osama bin Laden, and as an accountant for a charity accused of terrorist links.

The appearance of Islamists in the country's revolution, and supportive statements by Islamist groups, has led to fears that Western military action may be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.

Last week Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said that, while the Libyan opposition's leadership appeared to be "responsible men and women," US intelligence had detected "flickers" of terrorist activity among rebel groups. The comments were described by British government sources as "very alarming."

However, Islamists are said to form only a small minority within the rebel forces, and there is not said to have been any disagreement with the opposition's political leadership, which says it is secular.

Mr Hasidi, who spent several years in a training camp in Afghanistan, told a newspaper he does not support a Taliban-like state and


(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 04, 2011, 01:54:03 PM
Obama's Libyan folly
Al Jazeera ^ | 2011-04-04 | Richard Falk





Obama's Libyan folly

The NATO led intervention in Libya is hampered by a lack of foresight and clearly defined objectives, scholar argues. Richard Falk Last Modified: 04 Apr 2011 14:24 Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

Humanitarian Interventions are problematic in nature, further still those defined by poor planning rarely succeed [AP]

The outcome in Libya remains uncertain, but what seems clear beyond reasonable doubt is that military intervention has not saved the day for either the shadowy opposition known as 'the rebels', and certainly not for the people of the country.

It has seemingly plunged Libya into a protracted violent conflict with the domestic balance of forces tipping decisively in favour of the Gaddafi regime despite a major military onslaught managed by the American-led coalition, which in recent days has been supposedly outsourced to NATO.

But since when is NATO not an American dominated alliance? The best that can be hoped for at this stage is a face-saving ceasefire that commits the Libyan leadership to a power-sharing scheme, but leaves the governing process more or less as it is, possibly replacing Gaddafi with his son who offers the West the trappings of liberal modernity.

Rebels, lines and sand

President Barack Obama has chosen Libya as the place to draw a line in the sand, although it is a rather wavering and fuzzy line.

It was finally drawn in response to what was being called two weeks ago an imminent atrocity about to be inflicted upon the people of Benghazi, although the evidence of this prospect of dire bloodletting was never present much beyond the bombast of the dictator.

Obama stopped what the more ardent interventionist in his camp were derisively calling his "dithering". Heeding these criticisms, Obama on March 28 came out clearly in support of military action, although carefully circumscribed in scope and nature by reference to its supposedly narrow humanitarian undertaking of protecting Libyan civilians.

The futility of preventing a Gaddafi victory on the ground by establishing a no-fly zone, even as inappropriately expanded to become a 'no-drive' zone, should have been obvious to anyone conversant with the course of numerous political struggles of recent times being waged for the political control of a sovereign state.

What the world actually witnessed was mainly something other than an effort to protect Libyan civilians. It was rather a an unauthorised attempt to turn the tide of the conflict in favour of the insurrectionary campaign by destroying as many of the military assets possessed by Libya's armed forces as possible.

The campaign and character of the opposition has never been clearly established. It is still best described as a motley gathering of opposition forces vaguely referred to as 'the rebels'.

In contrast to the seeming failure of its military challenge, the public relations campaign of the rebels worked brilliantly.

Most of all it mobilised the humanitarian hawks inhabiting the Obama presidential bird nest, most prominently Samantha Power, who has long called upon the United States government to use its might wherever severe human rights abuses occur. And the media the celebrants of this intervention have been led by the NY Times stalwart, Nicholas Kristof.

The PR full court press also misleadingly convinced world public opinion and Western political leaders that the Gaddafi regime was opposed and hated by the entire population of Libya, making him extremely vulnerable to intervention, which encouraged the belief that the only alternative to military intervention was for the world to sit back and bear witness to genocide against the Libyan people taking place on a massive scale.

This entire portrayal of the conflict and the choices available to the UN and the global community was false in all its particulars.

No cakewalk

Even without the spurious wisdom of hindsight, the international undertaking could be criticised as having been designed to fail: a questionable intervention in what appeared increasingly to be an armed insurrection against the established government, yet falling far short of what would be needed to secure the outcome proclaimed as just and necessary – the fall of the Gaddafi government.

How can such a struggle, involving a challenge to the dynamics of self-determination, be won by relying on the bombs and missiles of colonial powers, undertaken without even the willingness to follow the attack with a willingness to engage in peacekeeping on the ground?

Had this willingness been present it would have at least connected the dots between the interventionary means adopted and the political mission being proclaimed.

Even with this more credible posture, the odds of success would still remain small. If we consider the record of the past sixty years, very few interventions by colonial or hegemonic actors were successful despite enjoying overwhelming military superiority.

The only 'success' stories of interventionary politics involve very minor countries such as Grenada and Panama, while the failures were in the big and prolonged struggles that took place in Indochina, Algeria, Indonesia.

In Libya, the prospects were further worsened by the incoherence, inexperience, and lack of discipline exhibited by rebel forces.

This effort of a weak and unorganised opposition to induce foreign forces to secure an otherwise unattainable victory is reminiscent of the bill of goods that wily Iraqi exiles sold to neoconservative operatives such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz during the lead up to the Iraq War (2003).

Remember the promises of flowers greeting the American troops arriving in Baghdad or regime change as 'a cakewalk' to be achieved without notable casualties or costs.

As in Libya the case for intervention rested on the false assumption that the foreign occupiers would be welcomed as liberators and that the Saddam Hussein regime lacked any popular base of support.

The scourge of war

Such a negative assessment of the Libyan intervention seems clear enough. This assessment was offered at the outset of the crisis by the most qualified high official in the Obama inner circle, Robert Gates, the secretary of defence.

Why did Obama not heed this sensible advice? Every Democratic president, and none more than Obama, struggle to maintain their image as willing to use force in the pursuit of national interests whenever the occasion arises.

And here, the risks of inaction must have seemed too great to bear. Instead, Obama attempted to have it both ways: lead the diplomatic effort to obtain a mandate from the UN Security Council, and then provide most of the military muscle for the initial phase of the operation, and after that withdraw to the background while NATO takes over.

This middle path is littered with contradictions: to convince the Security Council, and avoid a Russian or Chinese veto, it was necessary to portray the mission in the most narrow humanitarian terms as being only for the protection of civilians, while to protect the rebels (who are not 'civilians' as legally understood) required a much more ambitious scale of attack than is implied by establishing a no-fly zone; beyond this, if the unconditional goal was the elimination of the Gaddafi regime, then the intervention would have to go far beyond the boundary set by the Security Council decision.

It would have to tip the balance in the conflict. As has become clear, the approved military objectives have been dramatically exceeded in the flawed effort to protect the rebels and help them win, but seemingly to no avail.

Such disregard of the limits of the UN Security Council authorisation, awkwardly reinforced by the failure of the Security Council to play any subsequent supervisory role to ensure that its approval of force did not go beyond what had been agreed, has once again weakened the UN as a body operating within the constitutional framework of the UN Charter.

It makes the UN in the peace and security area appear to be more an agent of geopolitical forces in the West than an objective body seeking to implement the rule of law in relation to the strong and weak alike.

We all should remember that when the UN was established in the aftermath of World War II, it was assigned the primary responsibility of minimising the role of war in human affairs.

The inspirational opening words of the Preamble to the UN Charter should be recalled and solemnly reaffirmed: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 04, 2011, 02:18:53 PM
Libya: Former Guantánamo detainee is training rebels
The Telegraph ^ | 4/3/2011 | Nick Allen


Rebel recruits in the eastern port city of Derna are being trained by Sufyan Bin Qumu, a Libyan who was arrested following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and held at Guantánamo for six years.

Did Obama release him in 2007?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 05:27:19 AM
US (Obama) lifts assets freeze on Libyan defector linked to Lockerbie bombing
msnbc ^ | 4/5/2011 | SCOTT SHANE/ ny times


________________________ ________________________ ____-


The Obama administration dropped financial sanctions on Monday against the top Libyan official who fled to Britain last week, saying it hoped the move would encourage other senior aides to abandon Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the country’s embattled leader.

But the decision to unfreeze bank accounts and permit business dealings with the official, Moussa Koussa, underscored the predicament his defection poses for American and British authorities, who said on Tuesday that Scottish police and prosecutors planned to interview Mr. Koussa about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other issues “in the next few days.”

Mr. Koussa’s close knowledge of the ruling circle, which he is believed to be sharing inside a British safe house, could be invaluable in trying to strip Colonel Qaddafi of support.

But as the longtime Libyan intelligence chief and foreign minister, Mr. Koussa is widely believed to be implicated in acts of terrorism and murder over the last three decades, including the assassination of dissidents, the training of international terrorists and the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

“He was both the left arm and the right arm of the regime, its bloodhound,” said Dirk Vandewalle, a Dartmouth professor who has studied Libya for many years.


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 06:48:30 AM
Ahmadinejad Predicts Embarrassing End for Obama

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=900115123




TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted the US administration for its deceitful policies, and warned that US President Barack Obama will have to face an end far more embarrassing than what his predecessor, George W. Bush, encountered.

Speaking at a press conference here in Tehran on Monday, President Ahmadinejad stated that the capitalist system sough to save itself and its main base in the Middle-East, i.e. Israel, through entering new players into the scene under the guise of the motto of change and defending the rights of the nations.

But soon it was revealed that change means a change in nations in the interest of capitalism, he added.

Stating his interpretation of the Obama policy, Ahmadinejad said that the difference between Bush and Obama lies in the fact that the current US president uses force and at the same time deception and conspiracy unlike Bush who clearly resorted to weapon and military action to save the capitalistic system.

As regards the future of the US administration, the Iranian president stated, "I believe that he (Bush) left the scene of politics with shame, but his successor (Obama) will have to leave the scene of politics with much more shame because of his resort to both force and deception."

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 07:13:54 AM
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT
Stanley Kurtz

Archive    |    E-mail    |    Log In

April 5, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser


A member of the president’s National Security Council who shares Noam Chomsky’s foreign-policy goals? An influential presidential adviser whom 1960s revolutionary Tom Hayden treats as a fellow radical? A White House official who wrote a book aiming to turn an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxist-inspired, world-government-loving United Nations bureaucrat into a popular hero? Samantha Power, senior director of multilateral affairs for the National Security Council and perhaps the principal architect of our current intervention in Libya, is all of these things.

These scary-sounding tidbits might be dismissed as isolated “gotchas.” Unfortunately, when we view these radical outcroppings in the full sweep of her life’s work, Samantha Power emerges as a patriot’s nightmare — a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty to an international order largely controlled by leftist bureaucrats. Superficially, Power’s chief concern is to put a stop to genocide and “crimes against humanity.” More deeply, her goal is to use our shared horror at the worst that human beings can do in order to institute an ever-broadening regime of redistributive transnational governance.

Knowing what Samantha Power wants reveals a great deal about Barack Obama’s own ideological commitments. It’s not just a question of whether he shares Power’s long-term internationalist goals, although it’s highly likely that he does. Power’s thinking also represents a bridge of sorts between Obama’s domestic- and foreign-policy aspirations. Beyond that, Power embodies a style of pragmatic radicalism that Obama shares. Both Obama and Power are skilled at placing their ultimate ideological goals just out of sight, behind a screen of practical problem-solving.

THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE INTERVENTION
Critics of President Obama’s intervention in Libya — and there are many all across the political spectrum — have taken a variety of approaches to the novel characteristics of this military action. Some have lamented the president’s failure to establish a clear path to victory (i.e., the overthrow of Qaddafi), or indeed any unambiguous goal beyond the protection of civilian lives. By traditional war-fighting standards, the rationale given for Obama’s Libyan intervention amounts to incoherence and weakness.

Viewing the glass as half full, however, others have declared that the president secretly does want to oust Qaddafi and establish a democratic regime, or at least that the logic of events will inevitably force Obama in that direction. Still others have suggested that a quick overthrow of Qaddafi followed by withdrawal would establish a positive model for punitive expeditions, without the costly aftermath of nation-building. And some have simply christened Obama’s seemingly directionless strategy as an intentional program of pragmatic flexibility.

While there’s much to be said for each of these responses, more attention needs to be given to analyzing Obama’s intervention from the standpoint of his administration’s actual motives — which in this case, I believe, are largely coincidental with Samantha Power’s motives. Obama has told us that the action in Libya is a multilateral intervention, under United Nations auspices; that it is for fundamentally humanitarian purposes, but has strategic side benefits; and that it represents an opening for the United States to pursue its own goal of ousting Qaddafi, although via strictly non-military means. While Obama has in fact taken covert military steps against Qaddafi, and while our bombing campaign has been structured in such a way as to undermine Qaddafi when possible, we have indeed inhibited ourselves to a significant degree from pursuing regime change by military means.

Obama may not have been completely frank about the broader ideological goals behind this intervention, and yet the president’s address to the nation, as far as it went, was largely accurate. Fundamentally, our Libyan operation is a humanitarian action, with no clear or inevitable military-strategic purpose beyond that. There is enormous risk here, and no endgame. We might take strategic advantage of our restricted humanitarian action. But we might not, and, in any case, we are under no obligation to do so. For all we know, many of those we’re defending with American aircraft and missiles could be our dedicated terrorist enemies. From the standpoint of traditional calculations of national interest, this war is something akin to madness. Yet without fully articulating it (and that reticence is intentional), Obama and Power are attempting to accustom us to a whole new way of thinking about war, and about America’s place in the world.

Samantha Power has refused to give interviews of late, and the White House seems to be downplaying her influence on the intervention in Libya, and on the president generally. Yet numerous press reports indicate that Power “has Obama’s ear” and was in fact critical to his decision on Libya. Liberal foreign-policy expert Steve Clemons actually calls Power “the primary architect” of our Libyan intervention. The New York Times has gone so far as to characterize our humanitarian action as “something of a personal triumph” for Power.

If anything, these reports may underplay Power’s influence on Obama. The two met in 2005, when Obama contacted Power after reading her Pulitzer Prize–winning book on genocide, A Problem from Hell. Power quickly became then-senator Obama’s senior foreign-policy adviser, and so has a longer history with the president than do many others on his foreign-policy team.

A survey of Power’s writings indicates her long preoccupation with a series of issues now associated with Obama’s most controversial foreign-policy moves. In a 2003 piece for the New York Times, for example, Power bemoaned the reluctance of American policymakers to apologize to other countries for our supposed past mistakes. While Obama’s controversial (and so far unproductive) willingness to engage with the leaders of rogue states was initially attributed to a novice error during a 2007 debate with Hillary Clinton, the need to deal directly with even the worst rogue states is a major theme of Power’s second book, Chasing the Flame. That book was written in 2007, while Power was advising Obama’s presidential campaign. A 2007 piece by Power in The New York Times Book Review attacked the phrase “War on Terror,” which of course the Obama administration has since dropped.

In an appearance at Columbia University, just hours before the president’s Libya address, Power herself identified the protection of the citizens of Benghazi as the core purpose of our current intervention. Yet it should not be thought that Power’s shaping of Obama’s reasons and actions ends there. Almost a decade ago, Power laid out a series of secondary, interest-based justifications for humanitarian interventions — e.g., avoiding the creation of militarized refugees who might undermine regional stability, and flashing a discouraging signal to regional dictators — all of which were featured in Obama’s speech to the nation. To be sure, these “interest-based” justifications were largely rationalizations for an intervention driven overwhelmingly by humanitarian considerations. Yet Power’s broader and longstanding framing of the issue has been adopted wholesale by Obama.

In Power’s view, to be credible, humanitarian interventions must respond to immediate danger (thus Obama’s waiting until the militarily unpropitious moment when Benghazi itself was under imminent threat), must be supported by multilateral bodies (thus the resort to the U.N., NATO, and the Arab League in preference to the U.S. Congress), “must forswear up front . . . commercial or strategic interests in the region” (thus the disavowal of regime change as a goal of our multilateral action), and must “commit to remaining for a finite period” (as Obama has pledged to do in Libya). Even NATO’s threat to bomb the rebels if they kill civilians (which struck many as unrealistic, and at cross-purposes with our supposed military goals) is foreshadowed in Power’s writings, which highlight the need to police both sides in any humanitarian action.

PRAGMATIC RADICAL
The evident tension here is between Power’s desire to act, and to be seen to act, on strictly disinterested humanitarian grounds, and her need to sell humanitarian intervention to the public on grounds of national interest, conventionally defined. This leads to continual contradiction and dissembling in Power’s writings, as the ideology driving the action can neither fully disguise itself, nor fully announce itself either. So, too, with Barack Obama’s policies (and not just on Libya).

Nowhere is this pattern of disguise and contradiction more evident than on the topic of “American exceptionalism.” Supposedly, Obama’s address on Libya, with its invocation of America’s distinctive tradition of shouldering moral burdens throughout the world, gave the lie to those who have described the president as a critic of the concept. And Power’s work is filled with invocations of America’s unique leadership role in the world. But read carefully, her hymns of praise to American leadership all turn out to be calls for the United States to slowly devolve its power to international bodies. After all, the world’s foremost state would have to assume leadership of any process whereby its own power was gradually dismantled and handed off to others. This is essentially what Power is calling for, even as she frames the diminishment of America in superficially patriotic terms. Is Obama doing the same? I believe he is.

Power once promised that the stringent conditions she set out for intervention would make humanitarian military actions exceedingly rare. She has long admitted that, given that rarity, precisely what such interventions might achieve, as well as what they might cost, remains unclear. Now each day teaches us something new about the costs of her policies.

Arguments that Power developed to support past interventions are proving a poor fit for our Libyan operation. She dismissed claims that the Rwandan genocide was merely a case of “civil war” or “tribal violence.” Now her critics argue that Libya is not a Rwanda-style genocide, and that Power’s eagerness for a humanitarian showcase has led us to intervene in what really is a tribal civil war.

And what of her stringent conditions? In practice, she seems to have stretched her own standards of “large-scale crimes against humanity” to produce a specimen case, in an effort to entrench her favored doctrines in international law. Who knows if more people will now be casualties in the extended civil war enabled by our intervention than would have been killed in Benghazi last month?

Power worried just after 9/11 that an America soon to be militarily overstretched might give up on humanitarian interventions. Now she has helped to entangle us in an expensive and open-ended adventure at a time when we truly are at our limits — and at a time when dangers continue to spread in countries far more strategically significant than Libya. Power has long warned us that policies that alienate the rest of the world, such as detention at Guantanamo, make it tougher to assemble the multilateral coalitions that ultimately lighten our own security burdens. Yet now we find ourselves prevented from attacking our enemy Qaddafi, so as not to alienate our coalition partners (while Obama admits in practice that Guantanamo was in our interest all along).

Power might best be characterized as a pragmatic radical. Her outlook is “post-American,” an excellent example of what John Fonte has called “transnational progressivism.” Power means to slowly dismantle American sovereignty in favor of a constraining and ultimately redistributive regime of international law. It’s an odd position for a member of the president’s National Security Council, but then Power is no ordinary NSC staffer.

Power’s New York Times review of Noam Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival is an excellent example of what she’s about. Power is critical of Chomsky’s caustic tone, his failure to adequately back up his preaching-to-the-choir assertions, and his disregard of the complex tradeoffs inherent in foreign policy. But for all that, Power makes it clear that she largely shares Chomsky’s policy goals, above all the curbing of American power via the building up of international law and related doctrines of “human rights.” In other words, Power sees herself as the clever sort of radical who works from within established institutions, without ever really sacrificing her rebellious ideals.

FROM INTERVENTION TO WORLD GOVERNMENT
A long conversation with Power in 2003 convinced 1960s revolutionary Tom Hayden that she was a fellow-traveler of sorts, even if Power was not as systematically suspicious of American military force as a true Sixties-vintage radical would be. In Hayden’s assessment, Power’s originality was “to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” Hayden was right. The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.

Power’s aforementioned second book, Chasing the Flame, celebrates the life of a United Nations diplomat, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who died in a terrorist attack in Iraq in 2003. Vieira de Mello was a Sixties radical of international scope. Hailing from Brazil, he became a committed Marxist while studying at the Sorbonne. He was among the violent protesters arrested during the student uprising in Paris in 1968. His first published work was a defense of his actions.

Vieira de Mello went from student radicalism straight to a job with the U.N. in 1969, and brought his intense anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism with him. Later he became a bitter critic of Israel. A United Nations “patriot,” he carried around a well-worn copy of the U.N. Charter the way an American senator or Supreme Court justice might take a copy of the U.S. Constitution wherever he went. Vieira de Mello’s colleagues used to say that his blood ran U.N. blue. As the U.N.’s most charismatic and effective diplomat (said to be “a cross between James Bond and Bobby Kennedy”), Vieira de Mello is the hero around whom Power attempts to build a following for her ideals of global governance.

Power explains that Vieira de Mello never really surrendered his Sixties ideals, even as he transformed himself from a passionate ideologue into a “ruthless pragmatist.” The young America-hating Vieira de Mello grew into a mature diplomat who could charm Pres. George W. Bush, even while lecturing the commander-in-chief on the follies of Guantanamo Bay. In other words, Vieira de Mello learned to manage his public persona, appealing to American leaders with arguments (allegedly) based on American national interest.

This is clearly Power’s ideal for herself. In fact, she tells us in her acknowledgments that the point of the book is also “the point of my career.” Power even cites the uncanny resemblance between Vieira de Mello and Obama. Of course, Obama’s Alinskyite training stressed the need for community organizers to advance their quietly held leftist ideological goals through “pragmatic” appeals to the public’s “self-interest.” (For more on that, see my study of Obama.)

Samantha Power has a lot to teach us about Barack Obama. She herself draws analogies between the need to redistribute wealth via health-care coverage and the need to divide military and diplomatic power (and, implicitly, wealth) more evenly through the international system. Power regularly invokes arguments for international law derived from America’s Founders and the West’s great liberal thinkers, as if her goal were the founding of a government of the world. In truth, that is what Power is up to, even if she sees her project as a long-term collective effort necessarily extending beyond her own lifetime.

The novel doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” which Power means the Libyan action to enshrine in international law, could someday be used to justify military intervention to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel (apparently this is one of Power’s longstanding goals, although she now disavows it). The International Criminal Court, which Power has long defended, may someday enable the leftist Europeans who run it to place American soldiers and politicians on trial for supposed war crimes. The Obama administration’s troubling acquiescence in the development of sweeping international prohibitions on “aggression” may one day make virtually any use of force not pre-approved by the United Nations subject to international sanctions. These are the long-term goals of Power’s policies, although they are seldom confessed or discussed.

On rare occasions, Power comes straight out and admits that the sorts of interventions she favors constitute an almost pure cost to American national interest, traditionally defined. More often, she retreats into the language of “pragmatism” and “self-interest” to justify what she knows Americans will not support on its own terms. That is Samantha Power’s way and, not coincidentally, Barack Obama’s way as well.

At some point, after we’ve all done our best to fit the president’s puzzling Libyan adventure into our accustomed conceptual frameworks, we just might wake up and discover what has been going on behind the curtain. When we do, the answer will be found in the writings of Samantha Power.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the author of Radical-in-Chief.
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 07:37:13 AM
Air Force spending $4 million a day for Libya war
LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press – 1 hr 14 mins ago




WASHINGTON – The Air Force secretary says the service has been spending about $4 million a day to keep 50 fighter jets and nearly 40 support aircraft in the Libya conflict, including the cost of munitions.

Secretary Michael Donley tells reporters that the Air Force has spent $75 million as of Tuesday morning on the war. He says the U.S. decision to end its combat strike role in the conflict will cut costs, but he could not say by how much.

He says the Air Force has spent close to $50 million on the relief effort for the Japan earthquake, including $40 million to evacuate between 5,000-6,000 U.S. personnel.

The total U.S. costs for the Libya air campaign as of March 28 were $550 million, not counting normal deployment spending.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 225for70 on April 05, 2011, 08:46:01 AM
I was so against the war. However, i just found out that the Libyans were pulling newborn babies from incubators on CNN.  ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 06:56:20 PM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/776e3732-5fc4-11e0-a718-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1Ihwz7opM


Rebel-held Libya ‘running out of cash’
By Andrew England in Benghazi


Published: April 5 2011 19:46 | Last updated: April 5 2011 19:46

Rebel-held eastern Libya is at risk of running out of currency within weeks, the head of the opposition’s central bank has warned.

Banks were short of local and foreign currency, said Ahmed el-Sharif, adding the asset freeze imposed on the Muammer Gaddafi regime was hurting its foes as well.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Europe tested as US alters Libya policy - Apr-05.Libyan rebels forced to quit Brega - Apr-05.In depth: Libya uprising - Mar-27.Libyan rebels set for first crude exports - Apr-04.Benghazi commanders seek greater air power - Apr-04.Nine dead as forces open fire in Yemen - Apr-04..“When you get to the point of rationing liquidity, whether local or foreign currency, we are on the edge of a crisis,” he said.

Power was being rationed in Benghazi, where many shops and businesses have been closed for almost two months. A fuel and cooking gas shortage was averted only with the arrival of supplies from Qatar.

“We are in a cash economy; all the cash is with the public,” Mr Sharif said. “The banks will be empty in maybe two weeks.”

The opposition has paid public sector salaries in areas it controls for February and March but will struggle to meet April’s wage bill unless it can gain access to Libyan assets frozen offshore, he said. The monthly salaries for public sector workers in the east – 80-85 per cent of the region’s labour market – is estimated at 250m dinars ($204m), he said.

Curbs have been imposed on bank withdrawals and a 750-dinar cap has been put on salaries, Mr Sharif said.

The rebels say the Benghazi branch of the central bank was being separated from Tripoli and could operate as the legitimate authority if it were no longer subject to the asset freezes.

Billions of dollars in Libyan assets have been frozen. The US Treasury Department said in February that $30bn in Libyan government assets had been blocked, while the UK said in March it had frozen a further $19bn.

In an effort to raise funds as the impact of the seven-week uprising becomes more severe, the opposition is hoping to export oil. A tanker chartered by Vitol, the world’s largest oil trader, docked near the eastern city of Tubruq on Tuesday to take on about 1m barrels. The company, based in Geneva, declined to identify its client or say where the oil would end up. At current prices, the cargo is worth almost $126m.

Mr Sharif said he would advise the cessation of oil exports if the freeze continued to apply to the opposition. “You permitted Libya to sell oil. For what purpose? Just keep the price of oil down?” he said. “This is also a war against the Libyan people.

“If the west wants to protect Libyans they should protect them through every arena, economic, political and military,” he added.

Additional reporting by Javier Blas in London


.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/776e3732-5fc4-11e0-a718-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IhwviraB



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 06:58:06 PM
Libyan Rebels: 'Nato Is Now Our Problem'

Share Comments (102)3:03am UK, Wednesday April 06, 2011



Libyan rebels have accused Nato of being too slow to act - and asked them to suspend operations unless they "do the job properly".

Rebel leader Abdel Fattah Younes has complained the alliance takes hours to respond to events on the battlefield because of an overly bureaucratic process.

He claimed the alliance's inaction was allowing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces to advance and was letting them kill people in the rebel-held city of Misrata "everyday".

He said: "Nato is moving very slowly, allowing Gaddafi forces to advance. Nato has become our problem."

Mr Younes also said if Nato wanted to lift Col Gaddafi's weeks-long siege in Misrata, it could have done it weeks ago.

Nato took over from a coalition led by the United States, Britain and France on March 31.

It puts the alliance in charge of air strikes targeting Col Gaddafi's military infrastructure as well as policing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.

Mr Younes said: "One official calls another and then from the official to the head of Nato and from the head of Nato to the field commander. This takes eight hours."


 
Sky's Stuart Ramsay says a mosque has been razed to the ground


Meanwhile, Sky News has returned to Zawiyah - a town which saw a bloody uprising put down by Col Gaddafi's troops a few weeks ago.

Correspondent Stuart Ramsay discovered that the mosque which had been at the heart of the rebellion was razed to the ground.

In Tripoli, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim appeared to admit for the first time that civilians had been killed during battles in Zawiyah.

But he blamed "armed militias" rather than Col Gaddafi's troops.

In another development, Abdelati Obeidi has been appointed the Libyan government's new foreign minister, replacing Musa Kusa who defected to Britain last week.

Mr Obeidi, who had served as deputy foreign minister, has been on a foreign tour to discuss solutions to the crisis.

Elsewhere in Libya, Nato forces have reportedly launched air strikes on government forces near the key oil town of Brega.

It came as David Cameron said there was no future for Libya while the dictator was still in charge.

The Prime Minister said: "How could there be when he's literally been trying to butcher his own people?"


 
Rebels take cover during a fight with Gaddafi's troops outside Brega


Rebels said the troops' convoy of eight vehicles was hit early on Tuesday and two trucks mounted with machine guns were destroyed.

Both sides are battling for control of the key eastern port, which has changed hands several times.

Rebel attempts to fire rockets and mortars against government forces have been met with counter-attacks, sending rebel forces scrambling many miles east towards Ajdabiya.

Opposition fighters have been asking the coalition to assist them with bombardments against the dictator's troops for days.

Sky's Sam Kiley, in Ajdabiya, said: "The fact that there have been some air strikes, we believe, should be very encouraging to them (the rebels).

"(The rebels) are very anxious to take the oil terminal at Brega so they can begin to export oil through an arrangement with Qatar."

Meanwhile, Col Gaddafi's regime planned to put down protests by killing civilians before the uprising began, the International Criminal Court believes.


Air Strikes Are 'Encouraging' For Rebels
Anti-Libyan government demonstrations which started in February soon descended into civil war after the dictator's forces opened fire on protesters.

Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is to report back to the UN on May 4, and is then expected to request arrest warrants.

He said: "We have evidence that after the Tunisia and Egypt conflicts in January, people in the regime were planning how to control demonstrations inside Libya.

"They were hiding that from people outside and they were planning how to manage the crowds.

"The evidence we have is that the shooting of civilians was a pre-determined plan."

He added: "The planning at the beginning was to use tear gas and (if that failed to work) shooting."

The Libyan regime has said it is ready to discuss reforms to its political system, but insists that Col Gaddafi must be allowed to stay in the country.

Nato says its aerial onslaught has destroyed 30% of Libya's military weapons. The alliance's warplanes have flown 851 sorties since taking command of UN-backed military action last week.

Meanwhile, an oil tanker has arrived at a rebel-held eastern port in Tobruk, where it is expected to be loaded for the first time in nearly three weeks.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Libya-Rebels-Accuse-Nato-Of-Being-Too-Slow-To-Act/Article/201104115966111?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15966111_Video%2C_Libya%3A_Rebels_Accuse_Nato_Of_Being_Too_Slow_To_Act



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 05, 2011, 07:15:33 PM
Ha. Why don't they come out with it and say that they want NATO to do 100% of the fighting for them?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 05, 2011, 07:40:35 PM
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b076c8e-5fb4-11e0-a718-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1Ii8Hr7La


Europe feels strain as US alters Libya policy
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and James Blitz in London



Published: April 5 2011 20:22 | Last updated: April 6 2011 02:36

Transatlantic relations are being tested by the US’s refusal to lead the military mission in Libya, with figures on both sides of the ocean depicting the conflict as a wake-up call for Europe’s military and political establishments.

Britain and France are straining to fill the gap left by Washington’s decision to pull back, as Europe’s military ambitions are tested.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

In depth: Libya uprising - Mar-27.Benghazi commanders seek greater air power - Apr-04.Nato to take full control of Libya mission - Mar-25.Interactive Map: Fighting in Libya - Mar-27.Opinion: The military is right to fret over Libya - Mar-24.Turkey attacks France on Libya ‘crusade’ - Mar-24..The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had flown 1,600 sorties since operations began on March 19 and would no longer be involved in air strikes against Libyan targets. It would continue support missions, such as aerial refuelling, and would remain on alert for emergency strike missions, if requested by Nato.

Defence experts maintain that the US move has a longer-term significance, since it signals that Europeans cannot rely on Washington to provide security in crises in their neighbourhood.

“What we’ve seen in Libya is hugely significant,” said Lord Hutton, a former defence secretary in the last Labour government. “The US has been saying for 10 or 15 years that it wants the Europeans to share more of the security burden and we have to heed that lesson. We should be doing much more in Europe. We cannot go on expecting the US to take the leading role.”

Nicholas Burns, a former US ambassador to Nato, added that a Washington burdened with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq welcomed the Franco-British lead, even though it is the first time in Nato’s 62-year history that the US has not been in a clear leadership role in an alliance operation.

But he warned: “There’s a concern in the US that the European allies will not be able to match the intensity of air and sea operations that the Americans had in the first two weeks of operations ... The potential challenge is can they deliver an effective military response that will push Gaddafi back and can they avoid the political disunion in a fractious Nato alliance over air strikes going forward?”

A senior European diplomat put forward a different test, arguing that his country will be disappointed if the US does not re-enter the fray in Libya in the event of an emergency. Meanwhile, the rebels are already unhappy with the new Nato command, with General Abdel Fatah Younis, head of the rebel army, criticising the alliance for failing to do more to break the siege of the town of Misurata.

“Misurata is being subjected to a full extermination,” he said on Tuesday. “Nato blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here and there and is letting the people of Misurata die every day. Nato has disappointed us,” he said. Even though Libya is an exceptional case – the Obama administration insists it is not a US vital interest – the decision to leave Europe to take the lead is part of a broader trend of retrenchment in Washington, as a fiscally straitened US looks for its allies to do more.

“Lots of people are interpreting this as a very direct signal from the other side of the Atlantic that it’s high time the Europeans got their act together,” said a senior British defence official.

“The message to the French and British is that they said back in 1998, at a summit in St Malo, that they wanted to take care of their own destiny on defence. Well, where’s the beef?”

In Britain, the burden of Libya action is raising questions about whether the Conservative-led government’s decision in October to cut back defence spending should be revisited. The head of the RAF has already called for “genuine increases” to its budget.

The crisis also opens up questions on European collaboration. On one side is the close partnership forged by London and Paris. But Germany decided to abstain in the UN vote – and to play no part in the operation in spite of Berlin’s significant fixed wing capability.

“The French are spitting tacks at the Germans because of the stance they have taken on Libya,” said a British official.

Additional reporting by Andrew England
.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 06, 2011, 06:58:11 AM
The Germans are ungrateful in that we sent billions upon billions defending their asses from the Soviet Union until they were able to reunite with eastern Germany...now they don't want to help us do shit


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 06, 2011, 07:00:59 AM
The Germans are ungrateful in that we sent billions upon billions defending their asses from the Soviet Union until they were able to reunite with eastern Germany...now they don't want to help us do shit

Maybe they see this for the fools errand that it is, perhaps they realize that they can deal with Gaddahfi, they won't be able to deal with Islamic extremist, AQ, or the Muslim Brotherhood running the show.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 06, 2011, 03:09:28 PM
Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field 
msnbc ^ | 4/6/2011 | By Maria Golovnina




Libya said a U.N.-mandated British air strike had hit its major Sarir oilfield killing three guards and damaging a pipeline connecting the field to a Mediterranean port.

"British warplanes have attacked, have carried out an air strike against the Sarir oilfield which killed three oilfield guards and other employees at the field were also injured," Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told reporters.

There was no immediate official comment from Britain's Ministry of Defense on Kaim's comments about the field.

Earlier, Muammar Gaddafi's forces unleashed mortar rounds, tank fire and artillery shells on the western city of Misrata on as a French minister said NATO air strikes in Libya risked getting "bogged down."

Misrata, Libya's third city, rose up with other towns against Muammar Gaddafi's rule in mid-February, and it is now under attack by government troops after a violent crackdown put an end to most protests elsewhere in the west of the country.


(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2011, 05:03:09 AM
EDITORIAL: Libyan rebels to NATO: Get lost--Obama’s lack of leadership fans Mideast chaos
The Washington Times ^ | April 6, 2011 | Editorial





Libyan rebels are so frustrated with NATO that they think the alliance should halt its mil-itary operations. Maybe NATO should oblige them.

Forces fighting Moammar Gadhafi have become increasingly perturbed with the support they are getting from NATO under the newly named Operation Unified Protector. The rebels blame NATO for their flagging fortunes on the battlefield and have even requested that the alliance suspend operations unless they “do the job properly.” Gen. Abdel-fattah Younis, chief of staff of the rebel forces, said, “NATO is moving very slowly, allowing Gadhafi forces to advance. NATO has become our problem.”

It is amazing how quickly the rebels have developed a sense of entitlement. One legitimate response would be to take them up on their request to suspend operations, wish them well and leave. Then their problem would not be NATO so much as simple survival. Furthermore, Mr. Younis has paltry credentials as a freedom fighter. His previous gig was as Col. Gadhafi’s minister of the interior, which is not the kind of position one achieves from a track record of promoting tolerance and democratic values. If the rebel leadership wants to snark at the free world, they should find a more sympathetic mouthpiece.

Part of the rebel frustration is dealing with the NATO bureaucracy. Coordinating attacks involves too many levels of command and takes too long to be effective. Of course, the Libyan rebels are not the best organized fighting force in the world either. Mr. Younis is reportedly not even on speaking terms with Gen. Omar al-Hariri, the rebel defense minister. The rebel chain of command is uncertain, command and control is chaotic, and strategy is virtually nonexistent. NATO is probably doing the best it can under the circumstances.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2011, 05:05:01 AM
A new kind of defeat for America
NY Post ^ | April 6, 2011 | Victor Davis Hanson




President Obama has announced that America would stop attacking Col. Moammar Khadafy's forces in Libya. He instead hopes that others can force out Khadafy -- or that the dictator will leave through economic and diplomatic pressure.

It will apparently be up to NATO to finish the war-- without direct American combat participation. The relieved Obama administration had never quite explained what the mission was in the first place -- or for whom and for what we were fighting. Was the bombing to stop the killing, to help the rebels or to remove Khadafy?

Were we enforcing just a no-fly zone, establishing a sort of no-fly zone with occasional attacks on ground targets or secretly sending in American operatives on the ground to work with rebels? Did the Obama administration go well beyond the Arab League and United Nations resolutions by trying to target Khadafy for a while and ensure that the rebels won? If so, did anyone care?

Was the administration ever going to ask for congressional approval -- at a time when we are running a $1.6 trillion annual budget deficit and have about 150,000 troops committed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Was Libya a greater threat to our national security than Syria or Iran, or a greater humanitarian crisis than the Congo or Ivory Coast? Are our new allies, the rebels, Westernized reformers, Islamists, or both -- or neither?

The abrupt abandonment of hostilities after about two weeks has set a US military precedent. True, America once lost a big war in Vietnam. It also decided not to finish a war with Islamic terrorists in 1983 after Hezbollah operatives blew up 241 US military personnel in their Beirut barracks. In 1993, a few months after the "Black Hawk Down" mess in Mogadishu, President Bill Clinton quietly withdrew US troops


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2011, 07:43:31 AM
Libyan Rebel Commander: "Cut Gadaffi's Throat, Then Establish an Islamic State."
Pajamas Media ^ | April 4, 2011




While American intelligence experts search for "flickers" of jihadist involvement in the Libyan rebellion, a French reporter had no problem finding numerous jihadists on the front. "The Jihadists Go to the Front" is the title of French journalist Julien Fouchet's report from eastern Libya. Fouchet encountered a flagrant jihadist presence and met with participants who talked openly about their dedication to jihad and/or their desire to establish an Islamic state. Fouchet spotted a commander on a sand dune giving orders by satellite phone. "You can't speak to him," rebel fighters told Fouchet. "He's not fighting for Libya, it's for Allah." Further to the east Fouchet met a certain Sheikh Al-Hasy, director of the town's mosque who said "Those who followed the prophet Mohammed were the first jihadists so we're burying our martyrs next to them." Photos taken by Fouchet show a wall of the mosque covered with portraits of the "martyrs." Another commander told Fouchet "In the past I didn't like NATO. Now that they are HELPING US in Libya, it's different." As to his goals, "al-Sadi" explained to Fouchet that he had rejoined the jihad in order to "cut Gaddafi's throat and establish an Islamic state."


(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on April 07, 2011, 12:35:42 PM
Libyan Rebel Commander: "Cut Gadaffi's Throat, Then Establish an Islamic State."
Pajamas Media ^ | April 4, 2011




While American intelligence experts search for "flickers" of jihadist involvement in the Libyan rebellion, a French reporter had no problem finding numerous jihadists on the front. "The Jihadists Go to the Front" is the title of French journalist Julien Fouchet's report from eastern Libya. Fouchet encountered a flagrant jihadist presence and met with participants who talked openly about their dedication to jihad and/or their desire to establish an Islamic state. Fouchet spotted a commander on a sand dune giving orders by satellite phone. "You can't speak to him," rebel fighters told Fouchet. "He's not fighting for Libya, it's for Allah." Further to the east Fouchet met a certain Sheikh Al-Hasy, director of the town's mosque who said "Those who followed the prophet Mohammed were the first jihadists so we're burying our martyrs next to them." Photos taken by Fouchet show a wall of the mosque covered with portraits of the "martyrs." Another commander told Fouchet "In the past I didn't like NATO. Now that they are HELPING US in Libya, it's different." As to his goals, "al-Sadi" explained to Fouchet that he had rejoined the jihad in order to "cut Gaddafi's throat and establish an Islamic state."


(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...



I'm shocked...oh wait.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2011, 01:40:17 PM
Democrat: White House is low-balling costs of Libya mission
** FILE ** Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, speaks during the daily news briefing at the White House in Washington on Monday, Feb., 28, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
By Seth McLaughlin
-
The Washington Times
11:30 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2011




A Democratic lawmaker said Thursday that the White House is “dramatically underestimating” the cost of the nation’s military involvement in Libya by relying on misleading accounting.

“That effort is costing us billions a week,” Rep. Brad Sherman, California Democrat and a certified public accountant, said in his opening remarks at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing on reforming the United Nations with Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates testified that the nation’s initial involvement in establishing a no-fly zone over the skies of Libya carried a $550 million price tag and that the cost going forward would be about $40 million a month. He also assured lawmakers he had enough money in his budget to absorb the costs without asking Congress for new funding — though he wasn’t ready to say where exactly the money would come from.

But Mr. Sherman on Thursday said the estimates are based on what’s known as “marginal-cost accounting,” which doesn’t include costs for things such as overhead from the development of the weapons systems and equipment being used, or the salaries of the people involved in the effort.

“We need to use full-cost accounting,” Mr. Sherman said.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 07, 2011, 02:58:35 PM
Libyan Rebel Commander: "Cut Gadaffi's Throat, Then Establish an Islamic State."
Pajamas Media ^ | April 4, 2011




While American intelligence experts search for "flickers" of jihadist involvement in the Libyan rebellion, a French reporter had no problem finding numerous jihadists on the front. "The Jihadists Go to the Front" is the title of French journalist Julien Fouchet's report from eastern Libya. Fouchet encountered a flagrant jihadist presence and met with participants who talked openly about their dedication to jihad and/or their desire to establish an Islamic state. Fouchet spotted a commander on a sand dune giving orders by satellite phone. "You can't speak to him," rebel fighters told Fouchet. "He's not fighting for Libya, it's for Allah." Further to the east Fouchet met a certain Sheikh Al-Hasy, director of the town's mosque who said "Those who followed the prophet Mohammed were the first jihadists so we're burying our martyrs next to them." Photos taken by Fouchet show a wall of the mosque covered with portraits of the "martyrs." Another commander told Fouchet "In the past I didn't like NATO. Now that they are HELPING US in Libya, it's different." As to his goals, "al-Sadi" explained to Fouchet that he had rejoined the jihad in order to "cut Gaddafi's throat and establish an Islamic state."


(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...


And Obama is gladly helping these pieces of shit. It really makes me wonder if this guy is actually trying to re-establish the caliphate.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 07, 2011, 03:02:24 PM
And Obama is gladly helping these pieces of shit. It really makes me wonder if this guy is actually trying to re-establish the caliphate.

I thought we stopped almost all of our missions... I was reading or listening something about that earlier.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 07, 2011, 03:10:09 PM
I thought we stopped almost all of our missions... I was reading or listening something about that earlier.



From what I read, we wanted to stop and then when it became apparent that the rest of NATO is incompetent and inept we were forced to keep flying them.

Now they're talking about putting troops on the ground.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 07, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
From what I read, we wanted to stop and then when it became apparent that the rest of NATO is incompetent and inept we were forced to keep flying them.

Now they're talking about putting troops on the ground.

This is so fucking retarded... Of course NATO is incompetent... We knew that... How is that these people don't?

I wanna run for President Nick... You wanna be my Secretary of Defense?

I'm sure we'd do a much better job.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 225for70 on April 07, 2011, 03:24:47 PM
Nato Bombing Ivory coast now..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/cotedivoire/8428251/Ivory-Coast-UN-air-strikes-show-Wests-new-appetite-for-military-action.html
Ivory Coast: UN air strikes show West's new appetite for military action
The UN air strikes in Ivory Coast suggest Libya was no fluke: the West's appetite for military action has recovered robustly from the diplomatic trauma of the Iraq war.

UN air strikes are seen behind a tree in Abidjan Photo: REUTERS
By Jon Swaine, New York 12:13AM BST 05 Apr 2011
After a brief honeymoon following the successful mission to protect Kosovo in 1999, it seemed the Blairite era of "liberal interventionism" had been buried along with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
The chaos after the steamrollering of the UN Security Council by Tony Blair and George W. Bush in 2002-03 seemed likely to usher in a new period of isolationism.
Barack Obama swept to power in 2008 on a wave of anti-war sentiment, while David Cameron entered Downing Street last year insisting that the West "can't drop democracy from 40,000ft".
Yet the past three weeks have found the council – this time with a less noisy Anglo-American wing – willing to pass stunningly powerful resolutions allowing missile strikes against murderous leaders.
Both resolution 1973 on Libya and resolution 1975 on Ivory Coast give external forces the authority to take "all necessary" measures to protect civilians from violence – practically a carte blanche.
RELATED ARTICLES
Ivory Coast: Laurent Gbagbo 'negotiating surrender' 05 Apr 2011
Ivory Coast: UN launches air strikes against Gbagbo 04 Apr 2011
United Nations considering air strikes on Laurent Gbagbo 04 Apr 2011
Aid agencies brace for massive refugee flows from Ivory Coast 04 Apr 2011
Ivory Coast conflict in pictures 04 Apr 2011
UN fires rockets at Gbagbo's palace in Ivory Coast during wave of strikes 05 Apr 2011
A Western diplomat at the UN last night said the resolutions showed members were taking seriously the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, adopted in 2006, promising "timely and decisive action" against atrocities.
"TV pictures and the threat of humanitarian catastrophe have made people not want to wait for massacres to happen, as in Rwanda," he said, in language strikingly reminiscent of the Blair-Clinton era.
The diplomat said that crucial in both cases had been the endorsement of action by the respective regional authorities – on Libya, the Arab League and on Ivory Coast, Ecowas and the African Union.
"It's very difficult if you're Russia or China to say 'no' if the Arabs and the Africans themselves are saying 'yes'," he said.
Also important has been the belligerence of Paris. The site of the Chirac-era "Non!" has become gung-ho, ensuring military – and symbolic – backing from the European mainland.
While Mr Obama has stayed almost invisible, the domestically embattled Nicolas Sarkozy has taken personal "ownership" of both interventions, rushing out his statements before anyone else.
It may not last. "There will be a price to pay for rushing these things through," the diplomat said. "The Indians are very unhappy and agreed only reluctantly."
But for the time being, the "something must be done" attitude of the late 1990s – and talk of a single-willed "international community" – has made a surprise return to New York's Turtle Bay.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 07, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
This is so fucking retarded... Of course NATO is incompetent... We knew that... How is that these people don't?

I wanna run for President Nick... You wanna be my Secretary of Defense?

I'm sure we'd do a much better job.


Hahaha! I'm down.  8)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2011, 07:06:02 PM
Libyan rebels near Ajdabiya 'killed in Nato air strike'



Rebels in eastern Libya say their forces have been mistakenly hit in a Nato air raid on a rebel tank position.

Rebels said five died, while doctors in Ajdabiya told the BBC at least 13 rebel fighters had been killed in the strike.

The BBC's Wyre Davies reported chaotic scenes on the outskirts of Ajdabiya, with rebel forces in retreat.

It was the third such incident in recent days involving international forces deployed to protect Libyan civilians.

One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.

As well as those killed, many more were injured, he said.

Civilians were said to be fleeing Ajdabiya in their thousands, according to agency reports, after rumours spread that pro-Gaddafi forces were preparing to attack the city.

Meanwhile, a relief ship carrying emergency supplies of food and medicine has arrived in the besieged rebel-held city of Misrata, in western Libya.

Rebel anger
 
The rebels hit in the air strike had been moving a group of tanks, armoured vehicles and rocket launchers near the frontline between the towns of Ajdabiya and Brega in more than 30 transporters.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote
Nato, with all the equipment they have - is this the second mistake? Is it really a mistake or something arranged secretly?”
End Quote
Benghazi resident
 
In pictures: Nato 'hits Libya rebels'
There is considerable anger among rebel troops at what appears to have been a terrible mistake, our correspondent says.

They are asking why rebel units were hit, he adds, when they could be seen clearly advancing in a westerly direction towards the front line.

"It is unbelievable," said one Benghazi resident. "Nato, with all the equipment they have - is this the second mistake? Is it really a mistake or something arranged secretly?"

Another said: "The allies and the UN Security Council must allow us to be armed. We don't want anything, just to be armed to defend ourselves against this dictator and fascist."

Rebel forces in the area began retreating on Wednesday after heavy bombardment from government forces.

They had been calling for more Nato air strikes in recent days.

Nato said it was investigating the incident, noting that the area where the attack occurred was "unclear and fluid with mechanized weapons travelling in all directions".

"What remains clear is that Nato will continue to uphold the UN mandate and strike forces that can potentially cause harm to the civilian population of Libya," said the alliance in a statement.

Meanwhile, a different rebel spokesman said Thursday's fatal air strike was carried out by pro-government forces rather than by Nato.

"This was not a Nato air-strike; on the contrary, it was conducted by Gaddafi's brigades using SIAI Marchetti SF-260 planes," Col Ahmad Bani told al-Arabiya television.

'Friendly-fire incidents'
 
The alliance took over air operations from a US, French and British coalition a week ago, to enforce a UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya.


Click to play
AdvertisementA doctor at Ajdabiya hospital tells the BBC's Wyre Davies that there are many serious injuries
Last Friday, at least 13 people were reportedly killed when a coalition plane fired on a rebel convoy between Brega and Ajdabiya.

Three medical students were among the dead.

The attack came after rebels reportedly fired an anti-aircraft gun.

In a separate incident, seven civilians died and 25 were hurt in a coalition air strike on a pro-Gaddafi convoy near Brega.

Further west, in Libya's third-biggest city, Misrata, a ship chartered by the UN World Food Programme delivered hundreds of tonnes of high energy biscuits, flour, and water purification tablets, as well as enough medicine to last 30,000 people for a month.

Misrata has been under attack by Libyan government forces for several weeks, and Libyan rebels have complained it would "cease to exist" within a week unless Nato took action to save it.

Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has defended his policy in Libya, after criticism by some Libyan rebels that Turkey was trying to keep Col Gaddafi in power and had blocked access to rebel arms supplies.

"We've never had any secret agenda there," said Mr Erdogan. "Our only interest is securing the unity and well-being of Libya".

Mr Erdogan added that Turkey was working on achieving an early ceasefire, and the withdrawal of pro-Gaddafi forces from some cities.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 09, 2011, 07:29:17 AM
Shelling in East Libya Forces Rebel Retreat
VOA News April 09, 2011


Photo: Reuters
A rebel fighter stands on the back of a pick-up truck mounted with a rocket launcher at a staging post on the road between Ajdabiyah and Brega in Libya, April 9, 2011

Pro-government forces in Libya have shelled rebel fighters near Ajdabiya, challenging the rebels' hold on the city.

The attacks Saturday forced rebels to retreat, slowing their westward advance toward the oil town of Brega on the Mediterranean Sea.

Brega has gone from regime to rebel control and back again several times since the start of an uprising against the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Meanwhile, the Red Cross says a ship carrying medical supplies has docked in Misrata, a town that has been besieged by pro-Gadhafi forces for weeks.  It is the only city in western Libya where rebels have been able to maintain control.



Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.

 

Follow our Middle East reports on Twitter
and discuss them on our Facebook page.
 

 
 
 
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Shelling-in-East-Libya-Forces-Rebel-Retreat-119529874.html 
 

     SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close   
 

 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. 
 
 

 
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2011, 08:59:20 AM
Pentagon estimates Libya costs at $608 million (and counting...lots of angry comments)
YahooNews ^




WASHINGTON – The Pentagon said Monday the military intervention in Libya cost the U.S. an extra $608 million in the first few of weeks of the operation. Spending is down significantly, though not as much as expected. Defense Department spokeswoman Navy Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler said it will take several weeks to tally exactly how much has been spent. But $608 million is the price tag officials have estimated through April 4 — or for 17 days of the mission, the most recent figures available. The estimate shows a large drop from what the U.S. spent in the early days of the multinational operation that started March 19 — roughly $55 million a day in the first 10 days, then about $8.3 million a day in the seven that followed.

Still, very rough projections late last month estimated costs would decline even more than that as the U.S. handed lead of the operation to NATO. The alliance would also conduct most of the bombing missions. Officials didn't explain what caused the higher-than-expected rate of spending. It's possible at least part is due to the fact that the full transition to NATO went a little slower than expected.

It is the second time the Pentagon has released costs for setting up the no-fly zone in the North African nation and protecting civilians from strongman Moammar Gadhafi as he resists a movement to oust him.

Officials late last month said the added spending from March 19 through March 28, the first 10 days of the intervention, was $550 million. About 60 percent was for munitions. The remaining costs were for "higher operating tempo" of U.S. forces and of getting them there.

[...]


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2011, 10:01:09 AM
Arab League to request UN enforced No Fly Zone over Gaza
Hot Air ^ | April 11, 2011 | Bruce McQuain





It was only a matter of time for the real reason behind the “right to protect” (R2P) principle the UN has adopted to become apparent.

The Arab League provides it in its appeal to the UN: The Arab League (AL) said on Sunday it would ask the United Nations to consider imposing a no-fly zone over the Gaza Strip to protect the civilians against Israeli air strikes.

In a statement issued after an emergency meeting of the pan- Arab organization at the permanent delegates’ level in its Cairo headquarter, the AL said it would ask the United Nation Security Council to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the Israeli aggression over Gaza to lift the siege and impose a no-fly zone against the Israeli military to protect civilians.

The statement rejected the double standard policies towards the Palestinian case, urging the UN Security Council and the Quartet committee to bear all responsibilities for halting the subsequent massacres and provide an international protection for the unarmed citizens.

Now, this shouldn’t have a chance since it takes a vote of the Security Council to pass something like this and the US, with a permanent seat, has the right to veto any resolution calling for such a measure.

And a few years ago I’d have had no worries about there even being a ghost of a chance of such a measure being agreed to by the US. I have no such assurance now with this administration. And don’t forget, they got the cooperation of the Security Council recently for the imposition of the Libyan NFZ, so they’ll be asked for cooperation on this – it’s the trap that may have been set from the outset.

Of course, unaddressed by the AL is the provocation for the latest round of air attacks from Israel by the terrorist group Hamas:

Violence in Gaza started when Hamas, which holds sway there, fired a rocket at an Israeli school bus, critically wounding a 16- year-old student. Hamas later said it did not know the bus was carrying students. Hamas more than “holds sway there” – Hamas “governs” there. What it continues to do is execute acts of war against Israel and then whines when Israel reacts. What the AL is doing is attempting to get the US to level the playing field and create better opportunities for Hamas to continue firing rockets into Israel. And, of course, brave Hamas always ensures it does its provocations from areas with high densities of civilians. And Hamas could give a rip whether there were students on the bus. Read the description again – it was a freakin’ school bus. What else did they expect to be on it?

Note too that the AL uses precisely the argument that I and others who wrote about the application of R2P said would happen. The citing of a “double-standard” (you’ll do Libya but not Gaza?). It’s nonsense on a stick, of course, because supposedly R2P is there to protect civilians from their own government, not another government retaliating against deadly attacks by their own government.

This again illustrates the danger of such “principles” as the UN’s R2P. It is now being considered a tool by the weak but tyrannical in an effort to downgrade the defensive abilities of Israel to protect itself.

I say give them the go-ahead and let the AL enforce the NFZ. It will be good for fighter jet sales as the IAF will scatter pieces and parts of the various AL air forces over the Gaza strip as a result.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 11, 2011, 10:05:15 AM
I hate to break the news to the Arab League, but the Israeli's have some of the finest pilots in the world, it wouldn't be a cake walk like Libya.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 11, 2011, 10:08:53 AM
I called this move by the Arab League weeks ago. They were setting this up from the beginning.

Though like Kazan said, good luck. From what I've read, Israeli pilots are among the best there are.



In regards to Libya, the rebels rejected the AU's offer for a cease-fire. A cease-fire proposal that Gadhafi had accepted. This war is already becoming a sad joke and is going to end up as a colossal failure on Obama's behalf.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
I called this move by the Arab League weeks ago. They were setting this up from the beginning.

Though like Kazan said, good luck. From what I've read, Israeli pilots are among the best there are.

According to Powers, Rice, and Obama - the arab league is more important than the congress.     


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 11, 2011, 10:11:20 AM
According to Powers, Rice, and Obama - the arab league is more important than the congress.     

Foreigners, Muslims, illegal immigrants are all more important than Americans to the God-King. Not surprising that they value the opinion of the Arab League more.

These Arab regimes have been buying western military equipment for decades. Why not put it to use and enforce the NFZ themselves? But they won't because they're pussies and scared to death of the Israelis.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 11, 2011, 10:11:33 AM
According to Powers, Rice, and Obama - the arab league is more important than the congress.     

Yeah we'll see how happy people are with a NFZ over Gaza when dog fights ensue and both sides have losses.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 11, 2011, 10:12:59 AM
Foreigners, Muslims, illegal immigrants are all more important than Americans to the God-King. Not surprising that they value the opinion of the Arab League more.

These Arab regimes have been buying western military equipment for decades. Why not put it to use and enforce the NFZ themselves? But they won't because they're pussies and scared to death of the Israelis.

Exactly the Arabs know they have a snowballs chance in hell taking on Israel head-on, so see if you can get the UN to do it


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2011, 10:13:33 AM
Foreigners, Muslims, illegal immigrants are all more important than Americans to the God-King. Not surprising that they value the opinion of the Arab League more.

These Arab regimes have been buying western military equipment for decades. Why not put it to use and enforce the NFZ themselves? But they won't because they're pussies and scared to death of the Israelis.

They are hoping boy wonderbama will save them. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 13, 2011, 05:03:44 AM
The Battle against Gadhafi
NATO Fears War without End in Libya
By Carsten Volkery




http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,755616,00.html



Rebel fighters in the town of Brega. Their leaders have demanded more air strikes from NATO.



The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

 For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.
American warplanes had hardly left the skies over Libya when the remonstrations began. "NATO has let us down," said rebel military chief Abdul Fattah Younis. As the rebels retreated in the town of Brega in the face of a heavy onslaught by Gadhafi's troops, there were no NATO planes in sight.


The withdrawal of the American planes, which flew more than half of the sorties in the first two weeks of the air strikes, has weakened NATO's potential force. With the organization having taken control of the operation, American planes are now only in standby mode, leaving the much smaller air forces of France and the United Kingdom to take on most of the workload. Appeals from the NATO leadership to member countries to send more aircraft have so far been met with little success. Only the British have beefed up their presence, increasing the number of its Tornado contingent from eight to 12. The French, meanwhile, are having to split their military resouces between two fronts now, with the opening of the conflict in the Ivory Coast.

But the Libyan rebels are not alone in their complaints: Within NATO, there is also increasing frustration at the slow progress on the ground. The seemingly rudderless attacking and fleeing of the untrained fighters in the face of government soldiers is causing the Western allies to despair, albeit not in public, because it looks more and more likely that the undeclared aim of the international intervention -- the removal of dictator Moammar Gadhafi -- will probably never be achieved.

And this mutual disillusionment suggests that the second phase of the civil war is now beginning. The situation which critics had feared from the start has now seemingly occurred: a stalemate. The rebels are strong enough, with the support of NATO, to maintain their control of Benghazi, but are too weak to drive on in the direction of Tripoli. The front is moving a few miles back and forth, but the split between the Gadhafi-controlled west of the country and the rebel zone in the east seems to be solidifying.

"Sliding into a Prolonged Conflict"

"Libya appears to be sliding into a prolonged conflict with no light at the end of the tunnel," Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics (LSE), wrote in a commentary posted on CNN's website. The tenacious resistance of the Gadhafi regime is not surprising, he added, "given the tribal structure of Libyan society and Gadhafi's manipulation and co-opting of tribal divisions and allies."

NATO can always point to the fact that it is simply implementing the aims agreed upon by the United Nations -- a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians. But in reality, it is hardly a secret that the true goals of the operation are more than that. Every day that Gadhafi remains in power, pressure is growing on Western politicians and military leaders. The question of how long the intervention will last is increasingly being asked out loud. The British Royal Air Force chief estimated this week that it would take six months. Politicians, on the other hand, have had the foresight not to mention any deadlines.

The discussion in the West has been running in circles for quite some time now, although the question of whether to arm the rebels has been answered: The first deliveries of light weapons from abroad have arrived, rebel leader Younis said. The British government has also sent communications equipment to enable rebel leaders to better command their fighters. The international community appears to have agreed, however, that heavy artillery and complex high-tech weapons should not be given to Gadhafi's opponents.

As for the government, Gadhafi and his followers are being tackled with a further mixture of threats and promises. The dictator has been given the message that he would not be prevented from going into exile. At the same time, those around him are being encouraged to defect. And there does seem to be some movement: The flight of Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa last week was hailed as a breakthrough, while rumors that two of Gadhafi's sons, Saif al-Islam and Al-Saadi, are planning a future without their father can be interpreted as a sign of nervousness.

On Wednesday evening it was revealed that Gadhafi had written a letter to US President Barack Obama asking him to end the air strikes. It met with little success: Hilary Clinton immediately rejected the appeal out of hand and countered by demanding that the dictator go into exile.

Military Escalation a Backwards Step

But what will happen if all this fails to change the status quo? How long can the no-fly zone be maintained? Could the West come to terms with a divided country? How serious is the West about its repeated assertion that a future for Libya which involves Gadhafi and his sons is unthinkable? A divided country is regarded as unacceptable in the long run, but a ground invasion involving Western troops to resolve this split has been ruled out by all sides. An occupation of Libya was explicitly prohibited by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, and no Western or Arabic government wants to be drawn so far into the war. Nor would it be advisable, LSE Professor Gerges wrote. A military escalation could only be a backwards step -- one that would weaken the democratic movement in Libya.

No one has so far come up with an effective formula for ending the Libyan stalemate. The Western-Arab alliance is hoping steadfastedly for one of two outcomes: Either the rebels win the military conflict against all escalations, or Gadhafi voluntarily steps down. Either event would come as a surprise.


In the US, where skeptics have dominated the discussion from the start, there have already been demands for the operation, which seems to lack any strategy, to be ended immediately.

"Hoping to get lucky is no basis for US foreign policy," Doug Bandow of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote on the Huffington Post website. "The administration should begin a speedy exit from Libya. Washington doesn't need another disaster in the Middle East."

That would mean a loss of face, which no Western government wants. The crucial question is: Who has more patience, NATO or Gadhafi?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 13, 2011, 01:35:45 PM

April 13, 2011 1:20 PM PrintText

U.S. doing limited airstrikes for NATO in Libya




A crew member watches a Rafale fighter jet before being catapulted for a mission over Libya from France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, in the Gulf of Sirte, off the Libyan coast, April 13, 2011. (AP)
Anger in the Arab World
 

.(CBS/AP)  WASHINGTON - The Pentagon revealed for the first time Wednesday that U.S. fighter jets have continued to strike Libyan air defenses after turning the mission over to NATO.


Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under NATO command. They can be used when needed to take out enemy defenses as part of the enforcement of the no-fly zone.


CBS News National Security correspondent David Martin reported the missions, announced in an oh-by-the-way fashion by the Pentagon, have involved a handful of F-16s that have dropped a half-dozen bombs.


Separately, the U.S. has said that since the Libyan mission was turned over to NATO last week, special requests must be made for American fighters to conduct airstrikes to protect civilians. Lapan said there have been no requests for that kind of help.


Libya rebels urge U.S. to bring back bombers


Also Wednesday, two strong explosions struck the outskirts of Libya's capital as the rebel movement urged a stronger NATO-led air campaign on targets held by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, a witness said.


The witness, a resident of the capital, Tripoli, said the blasts apparently struck near the airport, where Qaddafi has military camps and forces encircling the capital.


"Over the past days, we didn't hear any explosions except for planes flying in the sky, but no raids," said the resident, who asked that his name not be used for fear of reprisals by the government.


Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab world


The explosions could be NATO airstrikes on targets held by Qaddafi.


Libyan rebels have been pleading for more NATO airstrikes as top Western and Arab envoys gather in Qatar's capital to discuss ways to end the Libyan crisis.


Mohamed Ismail Tajouri, a 54-year-old businessman who joined the rebels in their stronghold of Benghazi, said having a rebel delegation attend the Qatar meeting amounts to key international recognition.


"We are proud of this," he told The Associated Press. "This political development is really good for the rebels but the Qaddafi regime is not normal. He is a bloody creature, he won't leave until he spills some blood."


The meeting comes as fighting on the eastern side of the country has been restricted to the occasional barrage of rockets, in contrast to the rapid advances and retreats that characterized much of the fighting there in past weeks.


Qaddafi's forces, however, continued to shell the besieged city of Misrata in recent days. International groups are warning of a dire humanitarian crisis in Misrata, Libya's third-largest city and the only city in western Libya that is still partially in the hands of rebels.



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/13/501364/main20053556.shtml#ixzz1JRR7QyU4


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 13, 2011, 07:21:01 PM
Libya: US urged to return to front line

The United States was on Wednesday night facing calls to return to the front line in Libya, amid growing fears that Nato is failing to make progress against Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

By James Kirkup, Damien McElroy in Doha and Henry Samuel in Paris 10:02PM BST 13 Apr 2011

Rebel leaders said that Washington should reverse its decision to step back from offensive operations in Libya and once again take part in ground attacks.

Meeting in Paris, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of France called on Nato allies to "increase the momentum" of the military intervention in Libya.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, hinted that the Americans should deploy more firepower, saying: "It would improve the situation if we had that greater ground strike capability overall."

After leading the first stage of the Libyan intervention, the US earlier this month withdrew its forces from offensive operations, ceding control to Nato and its Arab allies.

Britain, France and the rebels are increasingly frustrated that neither other Nato allies nor the Arab states are prepared to attack Gaddafi's forces, insisting they will only help enforce a no-fly zone.

With Britain and France bearing the burden of the ground attack operation, there are fears that the allies lack the military force to shake the Libyan regime.

Mahmoud Shamman, a spokesman for the Benghazi-based Transitional National Council, said the Nato had allowed Col Gaddafi to regain the initiative on the battlefield since it took over from the US.

"When the Americans were involved the mission was very active and it as more leaning toward protecting the civilians," he said. "Nato is very slow responding to these attacks on the civilians. We'd like to see more work toward protecting the civilians."

A French official suggested that the US should deploy its specialist ground-attack aircraft including A-10 Thunderbolt tankbusters and AC-130 Spectre gunships, assets that Britain and France lack.

"If the United States provided resources to the current operation, so much the better," the official said.

In an ITV interview, Mr Hague refused to say if he was discussing a request for more American firepower.

"I'm not going to go into individual countries about this because our discussions with them are of course confidential," he said.

The Pentagon last night said that US forces continued to attack targets in Libya, but admitted those were "air defence" sites like missile batteries, and did not include tanks and other ground forces.

In a joint statement, Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy agreed that said that Nato "must continue to increase the momentum of action" against Gaddafi's forces.

Stepping up his criticism of Gaddafi, the Prime Minister accused the dictator of personally ordering the "murder" of Libyan civilians, including children.

"He is murdering his own citizens, including children. The orders come directly from him."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8449063/Libya-US-urged-to-return-to-front-line.html


These Europeans are completely fucking useless. Go earn your oil.

Libyan Rebels to US: "Hey, these NATO guys kinda suck, can you start bombing again?"


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 13, 2011, 07:26:16 PM
What happened to gadaffi leaving in days? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 13, 2011, 07:27:11 PM
What happened to gadaffi leaving in days? 

Hahaha. Right out the window alongside Obama's claim that this would be a quick "kinetic military action".  :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 14, 2011, 06:12:59 AM
Libya Rebels Seek $2 Billion Loan, Allies Ponder Next Steps
 Source: Bloomberg


Libyan rebels want to borrow at least $2 billion to buy food, medicine, fuel and perhaps weapons as their foreign allies agreed on the need to do more to help them prevail over Muammar Qaddafi’s forces.

Members of the so-called Libyan contact group said in a statement in Qatar that they may create a “temporary financial mechanism” to finance the rebels using Libyan government assets frozen abroad.

Short-term loans are “an option on the table that we discussed” at the Qatar meeting, Ali Tarhouni, the Interim Transitional National Council’s finance minister, said in an interview in Benghazi. The borrowing, which may be for as long as two years, could be repaid when Libyan assets are unfrozen, Tarhouni said. Reserves at the rebels’ central bank in Benghazi may not be enough to cover import needs for a month, he said.

The contact group, which includes the U.S., the U.K., France and other countries lending military support, agreed at the meeting that “Qaddafi and his regime had lost all legitimacy and he must leave power, allowing the Libyan people to determine their own future,” according to a statement released yesterday after the meeting in Doha.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/libyan-rebels-... 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 15, 2011, 03:10:23 AM
U.S., allies see Libyan rebels in hopeless disarray


1 / 7 Rebel fighters launch rockets against Gaddafi forces from the front-line along the western entrance of Ajdabiyah April 14, 2011.
Credit: Reuters/Yannis Behrakis

By Mark Hosenball and Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON | Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:51pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Too little is known about Libya's rebels and they remain too fragmented for the United States to get seriously involved in organizing or training them, let alone arming them, U.S. and European officials say.

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies believe NATO's no-fly zone and air strikes will be effective in stopping Muammar Gaddafi's forces from killing civilians and dislodging rebels from strongholds like Benghazi, the officials say.

But the more the intelligence agencies learn about rebel forces, the more they appear to be hopelessly disorganized and incapable of coalescing in the foreseeable future.

U.S. government experts believe the state of the opposition is so grave that it could take years to organize, arm and train them into a fighting force strong enough to drive Gaddafi from power and set up a working government.

The realistic outlook, U.S. and European officials said, is for an indefinite stalemate between the rebels -- supported by NATO air power -- and Gaddafi's forces.

"At this point neither side is able to defeat the other and neither appears willing to compromise," said one U.S. official who follows the Libyan conflict closely.

"The opposition needs time to do what they need to do -- forming a government, bringing together key opposition figures, getting on the same page and building a new generation of leaders," the official said.

There is no sign the CIA or any other U.S. agency is organizing arms supplies for the rebels. But U.S. officials say privately that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are willing to provide weapons and other support to Gaddafi's foes.

There are "indications" that Qatar has begun to supply some easy-to-use weapons, including shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets, to the opposition, a U.S. official said on Thursday. Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani was meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House on Thursday.

PROLONGED STALEMATE

Pentagon officials say NATO air strikes, combined with enforcement of an arms embargo, will degrade Gaddafi's fighting ability. The hope is this may create cracks in his regime and open the way for a political solution to the crisis.

One Western official compared the no-fly zone to a greenhouse that hopefully will allow for the gradual growth of a national opposition movement in Libya that draws together the disparate rebel factions.

Several weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed a secret order -- a "covert action finding" -- authorizing the CIA to consider a range of operations to support Gaddafi's opponents.

But the order requires the CIA to seek extra "permissions" from the White House before specific measures such as providing training, money or weapons.

CIA operatives on the ground are aggressively collecting information on the rebels, their structure, leadership and military capabilities, U.S. officials said.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 15, 2011, 11:38:11 AM

Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya
fox ^ | 3/20/11 | Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation



So three or four of Obama's advisers, all women, wanted war against Libya.   We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less prowar, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character to it. Far from it.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


why do you think Hillary of all people wanted Obama to intervene???


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 15, 2011, 11:40:10 AM
Wag the Dog   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 17, 2011, 08:58:43 AM
U.S., allies secretly seeking refuge for Gaddafi
ANI via Yahoo News Singapore ^ | Apr 17, 2011 | ANI News




Washington, Apr 17 (ANI): The United States and its allies have reportedly secretly begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that would be willing to give refuge to Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in case he is forced out of the oil rich country by rebel forces. Intelligence reports, however, have indicated that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator as of now. The New York Times reports that the search is continuing despite Gaddafi's unwillingness to give up to the demands of rebels in his country, and the Western powers.

The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya, the paper said.

According to three Obama administration officials, one possibility is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court. "We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us. What we're simply trying to do is find some peaceful way to organize an exit, if the opportunity arises," one of the officials said.

Earlier, Gaddafi had written a three-page letter to Obama, referring him as his 'son', urging him to intervene and stop the Western air campaign against his forces.


(Excerpt) Read more at sg.news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 17, 2011, 11:36:44 AM
The rebels aren't going to force anyone out, the only way Gadhafi is leaving is by choice or he gets dirt napped.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 07:48:30 AM
Libyan Rebel Leader Directing NATO Airstrikes Who Once Lived Under Taliban Protection Alongside Bin Laden Killed by Gaddafi Forces

(LA Times) — He once lived under the Taliban’s protection, met with Osama bin Laden and helped found a group the U.S. has listed as a terrorist organization. He died in a secondhand U.S. military uniform, ambushed by Moammar Kadafi’s men as he cleared a road after an airstrike by his new NATO allies.

Aides to Abdul Monem Muktar Mohammed say the Libyan rebel fighter was leading a convoy of 200 cars west of this hotly contested strategic city Friday when a bullet struck him on the right side of the chest. He opened his passenger door and jumped out. A rocket-propelled grenade exploded nearby.

“Don’t wait, go,” he yelled to his men. Then he got to his feet, staggered a few steps and fell.

Mohammed’s final days were a mirror of his past, of a life that saw contradictions and intersections with U.S. policy, ones that could return to haunt the United States.

He arrived in Afghanistan in 1990 at the conclusion of the mujahedin’s silent partnership with the United States against the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. The following decades saw him become an international pariah, operating in an underground world of armed training camps and safe houses.

But with the revolt against Kadafi that started in February, he once again found himself in an uneasy alliance with the United States.

Five days before he died, with gray in his hair and bags under his eyes, Mohammed climbed a concrete tower on the outskirts of Ajdabiya and phoned in positions to the rebel government so NATO could drop bombs on Kadafi’s forces.

Putting down his Thuraya satellite phone, Mohammed waved a shiny black 9-millimeter pistol on a road filled with empty bullet casings and waited for the explosions.

A few hours later, Mohammed and his Omar Mukhtar brigade, one of the new military units officially sanctioned by the opposition government, rejoiced as blasts shook the city. A few started dancing and singing “God is great.”

“I have never been Al Qaeda now or in the future,” Mohammed said as he watched his men clap. “We are religious and ordinary people. We are Libyans fighting for Libya.”

The onetime holy warrior boasted that he even wanted a close battlefield relationship with NATO. But he also bristled at Western double standards. Why, he grumbled, does NATO so readily bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan but hesitates against Kadafi? Still, he would take any firepower he could get. He wished he had his own direct line to NATO rather than communicating through middlemen.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-qaeda-20110417,0,6153551.story



Obama thought process: They seem like pro-democracy, secular people. Let's arm them! Taliban be damned!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 07:49:19 AM
WTF?   Are you kidding with that?   



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 07:50:03 AM
WTF?   Are you kidding with that?   



Nope. These are the people Obama, Power, Rice and Clinton have decided are worth saving, arming, funding and training.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 18, 2011, 07:52:29 AM
Nope. These are the people Obama, Power, Rice and Clinton have decided are worth saving, arming, funding and training.

The real question is what did Gadhafi do or what does he know that he a bullseye on his back all of the sudden.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 18, 2011, 07:53:17 AM
so if the rebels lose tomorrow... what has the US accomplished?

Kadaffi is weakened, his country is torn up.  US intelligence agents are all over the place now.  We got to blow up a bunch of shit that we wanted to blow up.  if kadaffi acts up/doesn't play ball, we have thousands of new ppl on the ground in place to ice his ass.  And their air defenses are gone now.

So for under a billion dollars (you know, what boehnner spends on Kleenex during a week of budget debates), we got a much stronger position over the #5 oil producing nation in the world.  #winning ???


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 07:54:47 AM
so if the rebels lose tomorrow... what has the US accomplished?

Kadaffi is weakened, his country is torn up.  US intelligence agents are all over the place now.  We got to blow up a bunch of shit that we wanted to blow up.  if kadaffi acts up/doesn't play ball, we have thousands of new ppl on the ground in place to ice his ass.  And their air defenses are gone now.

So for under a billion dollars (you know, what boehnner spends on Kleenex during a week of budget debates), we got a much stronger position over the #5 oil producing nation in the world.  #winning ???

Shut the fuck up.

You bring nothing to this thread beyond your fabricated claims (all of which have been shot the fuck down). This thread is about discussing facts, not your trashy claims that are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to save face your God-King.

Just about reaching that point where it's not worth wasting time to read your posts anymore.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 07:55:16 AM
so if the rebels lose tomorrow... what has the US accomplished?

Kadaffi is weakened, his country is torn up.  US intelligence agents are all over the place now.  We got to blow up a bunch of shit that we wanted to blow up.  if kadaffi acts up/doesn't play ball, we have thousands of new ppl on the ground in place to ice his ass.  And their air defenses are gone now.

So for under a billion dollars (you know, what boehnner spends on Kleenex during a week of budget debates), we got a much stronger position over the #5 oil producing nation in the world.  #winning ???

Sad bro - really sad.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 18, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
Shut the fuck up. You bring nothing to this thread beyond your fabricated claims (all of which have been shot the fuck down).

This thread is about discussing facts, not your trashy claims that are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to save face your God-King.

okay, youd rather attack me than address my points?

Seriously, if the US completely pulls out tomorrow... kadaffi has a black eye, we have intel people in key places, and they're weaker and we're stronger.  With no US casualties.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 07:56:17 AM
Sad bro - really sad.  

That post is easily in his top 10 most pathetic pro-Obama lies.

okay, youd rather attack me than address my points?

Seriously, if the US completely pulls out tomorrow... kadaffi has a black eye, we have intel people in key places, and they're weaker and we're stronger.  With no US casualties.

There's nothing to address. You can't substantiate a single one of those claims and are instead trying to save face for your hero. You are the same guy who claimed Gadhafi would be gone over a month ago and yet he's still there kicking...and more than holding his own.

Give it a rest. Your lies have worn out their welcome in this thread.


Have you honestly read a SINGLE article on any of this or do you intend to continually talk out of your ass? Nothing you say can be substantiated. Not a single thing. These rebels are a fucking mess. No training, no funding, no fighting ability. Not a single leader and they're in complete disarray. The only thing keeping this close to a stale-mate is US firepower and guess what, NATO is BEGGING us to fly more missions because they can't sustain it.  ::)



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 18, 2011, 07:57:00 AM
Sad bro - really sad.  

again, tell me why i'm wrong?  ???  Or easier to just attack me?

If the US pulls out tomorrow - spending less than a billion (I think?) and getting to smash up a country led by a terrorist... how is it not worth the money?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 07:58:31 AM
okay, youd rather attack me than address my points?

Seriously, if the US completely pulls out tomorrow... kadaffi has a black eye, we have intel people in key places, and they're weaker and we're stronger.  With no US casualties.

No - we look like abject failures. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 07:58:55 AM
No - we look like abject failures. 

You mean we don't already?

"Gadhafi would be gone in a matter of days, not week or months."  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 18, 2011, 07:59:07 AM
ok.  well, since ya dont feel like addressing my points, have a nice day :)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 08:00:42 AM
ok.  well, since ya dont feel like addressing my points, have a nice day :)

No - we made definitive statements from the get go that the mission would take "days, not weeks."   Now, over a month later, Gadaffi is winning and we look like idiots. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 18, 2011, 08:01:14 AM
so if the rebels lose tomorrow... what has the US accomplished?

Kadaffi is weakened, his country is torn up.  US intelligence agents are all over the place now.  We got to blow up a bunch of shit that we wanted to blow up.  if kadaffi acts up/doesn't play ball, we have thousands of new ppl on the ground in place to ice his ass.  And their air defenses are gone now.

So for under a billion dollars (you know, what boehnner spends on Kleenex during a week of budget debates), we got a much stronger position over the #5 oil producing nation in the world.  #winning ???

We haven't or are we accomplishing a fucking thing, if Gadhafi stays in power, ( which he will unless he leaves willingly or gets off'd by one of his people) his stock in the ME goes way up. NATO tried to take him out and failed, this is a loose loose for the US. We either have to keep dealing with a now defiant Gadhafi, or we get some loony Islamist filling the power vacuum.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 08:01:44 AM
ok.  well, since ya dont feel like addressing my points, have a nice day :)

I just did. Thanks for reading.


"Have you honestly read a SINGLE article on any of this or do you intend to continually talk out of your ass? Nothing you say can be substantiated. Not a single thing. These rebels are a fucking mess. No training, no funding, no fighting ability. Not a single leader and they're in complete disarray. The only thing keeping this close to a stale-mate is US firepower and guess what, NATO is BEGGING us to fly more missions because they can't sustain it."

"Have you honestly read a SINGLE article on any of this or do you intend to continually talk out of your ass? Nothing you say can be substantiated. Not a single thing. These rebels are a fucking mess. No training, no funding, no fighting ability. Not a single leader and they're in complete disarray. The only thing keeping this close to a stale-mate is US firepower and guess what, NATO is BEGGING us to fly more missions because they can't sustain it."

"Have you honestly read a SINGLE article on any of this or do you intend to continually talk out of your ass? Nothing you say can be substantiated. Not a single thing. These rebels are a fucking mess. No training, no funding, no fighting ability. Not a single leader and they're in complete disarray. The only thing keeping this close to a stale-mate is US firepower and guess what, NATO is BEGGING us to fly more missions because they can't sustain it."




This is typical of you. You get called out on your opinionated, unsubstantiated bullshit and instead of linking articles, testimony or anything to back up your point you just leave the thread. Thanks for playing.  ::)

We haven't or are we accomplishing a fucking thing, if Gadhafi stays in power, ( which he will unless he leaves willingly or gets off'd by one of his people) his stock in the ME goes way up. NATO tried to take him out and failed, this is a loose loose for the US. We either have to keep dealing with a now defiant Gadhafi, or we get some loony Islamist filling the power vacuum.

The Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron-authored op-ed this weekend laid out that Gadhafi is now a legitimate target, if I'm not mistaken (could have been that op-ed or another article I read). So not only have they flat-out lied about the reasoning behind stopping this "humanitarian crisis" but now, 2 months after the fact, they're finally ready to kill Gadhafi (not that it'll likely happen).


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 08:06:55 AM
Its really amazing.   I hve no love for gadaffi whatsoever - but now we turned a NFZ into a assasination hit to cover up for he incompetence of Obama issuing his statements "days not weeks" crap.   
 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 18, 2011, 08:08:37 AM
Its really amazing.   I hve no love for gadaffi whatsoever - but now we turned a NFZ into a assasination hit to cover up for he incompetence of Obama issuing his statements "days not weeks" crap.   
 

Gadhafi knows something or has some information on someone, this whole uprising is just a convenient distraction from the real end game.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 08:08:44 AM
Its really amazing.   I hve no love for gadaffi whatsoever - but now we turned a NFZ into a assasination hit to cover up for he incompetence of Obama issuing his statements "days not weeks" crap.   
 

This whole affair is one gigantic fiasco. It's embarrassing for this entire country and really shows just how out of his league 240's God-King is.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 08:12:41 AM
This whole affair is one gigantic fiasco. It's embarrassing for this entire country and really shows just how out of his league 240's God-King is.


The best part is that I have the Team Dildo morons attacking me on other threads who refuse to even remotely address these issues.     


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 08:14:00 AM

The best part is that I have the Team Dildo morons attacking me on other threads who refuse to even remotely address these issues.     

Of course. They're pathetic hypocrites who avoid threads they know they stand no chance of personally insulting their way out of.

They'd rather obsess over the latest Palin tweet.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 08:18:38 AM
I read a story about 5 US Soldiers dying in Afghanistan this weekend to a supposed afghani police fficer we traned and that this is a growing problem.   Any word on this from the MSM or Team Dildo?


NO   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 18, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
This whole affair is one gigantic fiasco. It's embarrassing for this entire country and really shows just how out of his league 240's God-King is.

Gotta agree actually... It's really unbelievable... Obama is either not as smart as I thought he was, or he is obviously giving in to some cronies on his cabinet.

Either way, this shit is bad.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on April 18, 2011, 12:21:35 PM
OBAMA:  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://mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

He does, if he is a 'Republican'.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
Oh great, the manic depressive is back. What European country are you hiding in now?

He does, if he is a 'Republican'.

Obama = democrat.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on April 18, 2011, 12:26:46 PM
He does, if he is a 'Republican'.

He does if he is president. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on April 18, 2011, 12:28:52 PM
Oh great, the manic depressive is back. What European country are you hiding in now?

I see you have not lost your inabilty to actually talk about real issues.

My point was simply that foreign policy has been the same for years, calling president X a hypocrite and Y something else is pointless because they are all hypocrites in this regard.

These boards are a farce for that reason; right wingers support anything a right wing president does and left wingers do the exact same thing.

You know well enough btw, that we generally only get involved if there are natural resources available, though there have been exceptions.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 12:30:56 PM
If these boards are a farce then why do you insist of popping in here every few months to drop your prophetic knowledge on us?

Career students pursuing their umpteenth degree shouldn't thumb their nose at anyone.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 18, 2011, 12:31:16 PM
Bama told me this was to prevent genocide.  Did he lie us into war like GWB?  


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Bama told me this was to prevent genocide.  Did he lie us into war like GWB?  

He said something like "if we had waited even one more day then a massacre of cataclysmic proportions would have befallen the people of Benghazi." Now all evidence points to the God-King being a lying snake.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on April 18, 2011, 12:33:43 PM
If these boards are a farce then why do you insist of popping in here every few months to drop your prophetic knowledge on us?

Career students pursuing their umpteenth degree shouldn't thumb their nose at anyone.



So, you can't address anything I mentioned in the previous post? All I see are the usual ad hominems BF.

There is nothing prophetic about anything I say, it's quite obvious that there is little tangible difference between the parties and that both are beholden to corporate interests; foreign policy is always the same.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 18, 2011, 12:36:06 PM
Bama told me this was to prevent genocide.  Did he lie us into war like GWB? 

Yes.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 18, 2011, 12:39:16 PM
So, you can't address anything I mentioned in the previous post? All I see are the usual ad hominems BF.

There is nothing prophetic about anything I say, it's quite obvious that there is little tangible difference between the parties and that both are beholden to corporate interests; foreign policy is always the same.

I didn't bother reading your post. I caught the part about a farce as I skimmed over it and that was it. You've been a broken record for years now. Just like this post of yours, which I stopped reading after the first sentence. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on April 18, 2011, 12:44:15 PM
I didn't bother reading your post. I caught the part about a farce as I skimmed over it and that was it. You've been a broken record for years now. Just like this post of yours, which I stopped reading after the first sentence.  

We have a lot of broken records on this board; I dare say 90% of us are broken records, you certainly included, so there is nothing special about being a broken record in this regard.

You disqualify yourself by not even reading what I write with your only response being ad hominems, I could respond in turn with such  language, but that doesn't solve anything.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 19, 2011, 04:21:42 AM
Have U.S. and NATO Given Up on Libya Mess?
Townhall.com ^ | April 19, 2011 | Byron York





While Washington has been consumed by the battle of the budget, the people running the real war in Libya seem to have given up hope of using American and NATO firepower to drive Moammar Gadhafi from power.

"There is no military solution to this conflict," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently. "We need a political solution, and it's up to the Libyan people to come up with one."

"There will not be a military solution to the problem," said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe.

"We will not see a military solution in Libya," said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

All agree, as does President Obama, that there is no good future for Libya without Gadhafi's departure. Yet it appears Gadhafi's chances of hanging on to power have improved markedly since NATO took over military operations from the U.S.-led Operation Odyssey Dawn. Under NATO's Operation Unified Protector, Gadhafi has turned a situation in which the end of his rule seemed imminent into one in which he might well remain in control of at least part of Libya.

At the moment, Operation Unified Protector is anything but unified. Britain and France, with American support, are doing most of the work of enforcing the no-fly zone and attacking ground targets. Some NATO members, like the Netherlands, will not participate in missions to hit targets on the ground. Others, like Italy, won't let pilots fire on anything. And still others, like Germany, Poland and Turkey, have refused to take part at all. As far as the much-ballyhooed participation of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is concerned -- well, it has been mostly symbolic. With such a fragmented coalition, NATO foreign ministers who met last week in Berlin are desperate to convey an image of unity. "All of us agree: We have a responsibility to protect Libyan civilians against a brutal dictator," Rasmussen told the meeting. But when a reporter asked a simple question -- "How are you going to achieve the aim of getting rid of Gadhafi?" -- Rasmussen had virtually nothing to say. And when another reporter asked whether the secretary general could convince any other NATO countries to take a more active role in the operation, Rasmussen could only respond, "Well, I don't have specific pledges or promises from this meeting, but I heard indications that give me hope."

Meanwhile, much of the Obama administration appears to have tiptoed away from the Libya adventure. Obama has not uttered the word "Libya" in quite a while (although he did mention it in an April 7 written statement marking the anniversary of the massacre in Rwanda). The Pentagon stopped holding press briefings specifically on the Libyan operation once command was transferred to NATO. And now there is confusion about what American forces are actually doing in the skies over Libya.

When NATO took charge, the United States said it was pulling out of attack missions. "We will not be taking an active part in strike activities," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress on March 31. But recently there were reports that American planes have in fact struck ground targets, mainly Libyan air defenses. The Pentagon later confirmed those reports; it turns out that U.S. planes have hit Libyan air defenses three times since April 4. But military officials insist the attacks have not been "strikes." "We do not characterize those as 'strikes,' because (air-defense suppression) is considered a defensive, (not) offensive, mission," a Pentagon spokesman told the American Forces Press Service.

The only administration official saying much about Libya is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently cited "disturbing reports" that Gadhafi's forces continue their attacks on civilians and have cut off water, food and power to the Libyan city of Misurata. The United States "condemns" Gadhafi's attacks, Clinton said, and is "gathering information about Gadhafi's actions that may constitute violations of international humanitarian or human-rights law." In other words, having virtually abandoned military force, the Obama administration might someday take Gadhafi to court.

When the war began last month, Americans were divided on whether U.S. troops should attack Libya. But it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans wanted U.S. forces, once in action, to succeed. Allowing Gadhafi to withstand American attack and remain defiantly in power while the NATO powers dicker among themselves is not success. No wonder many people were skeptical when commander in chief Obama ordered U.S. forces into a new action for the first time.




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 19, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
Libya rebels raise concern about Islamic extremism
AP

Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:52:41 AM by DTA

(AP) –



AJDABIYA, Libya (AP) — Abdel-Moneim Mokhtar was ambushed and killed by Moammar Gadhafi's troops last week on a dusty road in eastern Libya — the end of a journey that saw him fight as a jihadi in Afghanistan and then return home where he died alongside NATO-backed rebels trying to oust the longtime authoritarian leader.

In describing Mokhtar's death on Friday, Gadhafi's government said he was a member of al-Qaida — part of an ongoing attempt to link the rebels to Osama bin Laden's group. Four years ago, al-Qaida said it had allied itself with the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group — of which Mokhtar was a top military commander.

Two days before he was killed, Mokhtar denied any connection between his group and al-Qaida, telling The Associated Press in an interview: "We only fought to free Libya."

"We realized that Gadhafi is a killer and imprisoned people, so we had to fight him," said Mokhtar, one of a handful of rebel battalion commanders who led more than 150 rebels in eastern Libya.

The question of Islamic fundamentalists among the rebels is one of the murkier issues for Western nations who are aiding the anti-Gadhafi forces with airstrikes and must decide how deeply to get involved in the fight. Some countries, including the U.S., have been wary — partly out of concern over possible extremists among the rebels.

NATO's top commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, told Congress last month that officials had seen "flickers" of possible al-Qaida and Hezbollah involvement with rebel forces. But he said there was no evidence of significant numbers within the opposition leadership.

Spokesman Mustafa Gheriani of the opposition council in Benghazi said any extremists among the fighters are exceptions and that ensuring democracy is the only way to combat them.

Mokhtar, 41, of the northwestern town of Sabratha, arrived in Afghanistan at age 20 in 1990 when the mujahedeen were fighting the puppet regime installed by the Soviets before they withdrew after a decade-long war.

He fought for three years in the fields and mountains of Khost and Kandahar provinces under Jalaluddin Haqqani — a prominent commander who was backed by the U.S. during the Soviet war but has now become one of its fiercest enemies in Afghanistan.

At least 500 Libyans went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, according to The Jamestown Foundation, a U.S.-based think tank, but Mokhtar said there aren't many fighting with the rebels now. Many like Mokhtar who returned home were arrested or killed by Gadhafi when they announced the creation of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the mid-1990s to challenge his rule.

Mokhtar became one of the LIFG's top three military commanders, said Anes Sharif, another member of the group who has known him for almost two decades.

Mokhtar was in charge in southern Libya and planned several assassination attempts on Gadhafi, including one in 1996 when a militant threw a grenade at the ruler near the southern desert town of Brak that failed to explode, Sharif said.

"Abdel-Moneim was the man who organized, prepared and mastered all those kinds of operations," said Sharif, who is from the northeastern town of Darna, which has been a hotbed of Islamist activity.

The LIFG also waged attacks against Gadhafi's security forces. But the Libyan leader cracked down on the group, especially in Darna and what is now the rebel-held capital of Benghazi.

"The worst fight was against Gadhafi in the 1990s," Mokhtar said. "If he captured us, he would not only torture us but our families as well."

The response forced many members of the group, including Mokhtar, to flee abroad, Sharif said. Mokhtar left in the late 1990s and only returned after the current uprising began, Sharif said.

"We don't have many experienced commanders in the battlefield. That's why I'm out here," said Mokhtar, his full black beard peppered with gray as he stood outside Ajdabiya surrounded by rebel pickup trucks bristling with rocket launchers and heavy machine guns.

Al-Qaida announced in 2007 that it had allied with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and the group was put on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Both Mokhtar and Sharif denied the connection, saying it was never endorsed by the group's leadership.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group publicly renounced violence in 2009 following about three years of negotiations with Libyan authorities — including with Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam. In a statement at the time, the group insisted it had "no link to the al-Qaida organization in the past and has none now."

The Libyan government released more than 100 members of the LIFG in recent years as part of the negotiations. Sharif said the group changed its name to the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change before the current uprising.

British authorities believe the LIFG has stood by its pledge of nonviolence, and has no ties to al-Qaida — though acknowledge that other Libyans command senior positions in the terror group's hierarchy, including Abu Yahia al-Libi, al-Qaida's Afghanistan commander.

"They clearly are still committed to an Islamist world view, but don't subscribe to terrorist tactics any more," said Ghaffar Hussain, who works on deradicalization projects for the Quilliam Foundation, a British anti-extremism think tank.

"Some former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group figures have decided to join the rebels, mainly because they remain opposed to Gadhafi's regime — but there is no sign of them reforming as a jihadist organization," he said.

However, Hussain said there was clear evidence that al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the al-Qaida offshoot which U.S. officials believe poses the most immediate terror threat to America — was trying to join the fighting against Gadhafi's forces.

"The rebels are being very careful to keep a distance from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, knowing the damage that any associated with them would do to their cause," Hussain said.

Since the uprising began in February, Gadhafi has played up fears that the rebels include fighters from al-Qaida, but no evidence has surfaced to support the accusations.

Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told reporters Sunday night that Mokhtar "has been an al-Qaida member since the '80s," although he offered no evidence. He called him by his tribal name, al-Madhouni, and said he "fought in many countries, including Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria and Libya" and was wanted by "international authorities."

A U.S. intelligence official said that Mokhtar has been involved in extremist activities in Afghanistan and Libya since the 1990s. He may not have been in lockstep with al-Qaida at the time of his death, but he's been "a fellow traveler in the past," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

The official concluded that it's too early to know whether Mokhtar and other members of his group have abandoned their previous extremist tendencies.

Mokhtar said in the interview that he, Sharif and other members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group still have the same passion to oust Gadhafi, but added they no longer aspire to set up an Islamic state.

Instead, they say their goal is the same as the rebels' National Transitional Council: a democratic government that respects human rights and the rule of law.

"We are here only to fight for freedom, and that is our only goal," Mokhtar said.

"We want a free Libya and a government for all Libyans — a government that doesn't distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, that is run by a constitution and respects Islam," he added.

Sharif, who was part of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's political division and has been working with the rebels as well, said years of experience have convinced them that most Libyans don't want to live under a strict Islamic regime. But he did believe that politicians with conservative Islamic views will attract the most support in Libya.

"The West needs to understand that there is a difference between Islamic culture and radicalization," Sharif said.

Another area of concern for the West has been the relatively high number of Libyans who have gone to fight against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. One study done by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 2008 found that Libyans represented the second largest group of foreign fighters and ranked first per capita.

Sharif said a small number of radical Islamists do exist in Libya, but he said the best way to deal with them is to get rid of Gadhafi, whose repressive policies have exacerbated extremism in the country.

"In an environment where everybody is respected and is allowed to carry out their religion without fear of being tortured, arrested or killed, there is no extremism," said Sharif.

He also said that the rebels are committed to keeping foreign fighters out of Libya — a sentiment echoed by others on the battlefield.

"The rebels are determined not to allow al-Qaida or any other non-Libyans to have a base here," Sharif said. "We don't want the country to be a battlefield for other groups to finish their wars. We don't want to see Libya as another Iraq or Afghanistan."

Associated Press writers Danica Kirka in London and Kimberly Dozier


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 19, 2011, 08:02:52 AM
If these boards are a farce then why do you insist of popping in here every few months to drop your prophetic knowledge on us?

Career students pursuing their umpteenth degree shouldn't thumb their nose at anyone.



what exactly is your education smart guy???


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 19, 2011, 10:27:30 AM
NATO Says It Cannot Stop Shelling Of Libyan City
AP via Yahoo News ^ | 19 April 2011 | Karin Laub & Maggie Michael





TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO military commanders conceded Tuesday they are unable to stop Moammar Gadhafi's shelling of the rebel-held city of Misrata, where hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties, while Britain said it will dispatch senior military officers to advise the opposition.

Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, has been under siege for nearly two months, with rebels holding on to seaside positions in the port area. In recent days, Libyan troops have pounded the city with shells and rockets.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 19, 2011, 10:28:29 AM
 ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 19, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
;D

gee, why don't you just suck the terrorist off already?  lol


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 19, 2011, 02:09:23 PM
gee, why don't you just suck the terrorist off already?  lol

You seem upset now that all your lies and fictitious claims are coming down on both your and your God-King's head.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 19, 2011, 05:40:32 PM
nah, i see the rebels as al-q trash, and kadaffi as terrorist trash that attacked us too.


him applying 'winning' to that dirtbag is disgusting.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 19, 2011, 05:55:07 PM
Ha ha ha ha.  Sad isn't it? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 19, 2011, 07:21:55 PM
Ha ha ha ha.  Sad isn't it? 

the sad part is you siding with a Dictator over the U.S. government


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 19, 2011, 07:29:19 PM
Ha ha ha ha.  Sad isn't it? 

maybe it's possible they're BOTH bags of shit - rebels and al-q - and arming the rebels allows us to see both sides' numbers thinning.

I don't see why you have to choose to suck a big dick or a small dick, when you can just turn down the dick, ya know?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 20, 2011, 02:08:09 AM
I would vote for gadaffi over bama in 2012 if given the choice.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 20, 2011, 07:25:35 AM
I would vote for gadaffi over bama in 2012 if given the choice.

you'd vote for Hitler too apparently


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 20, 2011, 10:55:10 AM
Libya rebels will receive $25 million from U.S.
The Washington Times ^ | 4-20-2011 | Eli Lake





Dismissing concerns over possible links between Libyan rebels and al Qaeda, the Obama administration has notified Congress it is providing $25 million in nonlethal aid to the rebels’ effort to drive Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime from power.


“The president’s proposed actions would provide urgently needed nonlethal assistance to support efforts to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya,” said Joseph E. Macmanus, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, in an April 15 letter. A copy of the letter, sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was obtained by The Washington Times.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 20, 2011, 11:02:35 AM
Libya rebels will receive $25 million from U.S.
The Washington Times ^ | 4-20-2011 | Eli Lake





Dismissing concerns over possible links between Libyan rebels and al Qaeda, the Obama administration has notified Congress it is providing $25 million in nonlethal aid to the rebels’ effort to drive Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime from power.


“The president’s proposed actions would provide urgently needed nonlethal assistance to support efforts to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya,” said Joseph E. Macmanus, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, in an April 15 letter. A copy of the letter, sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was obtained by The Washington Times.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...



Geez ::) And how exactly are we going to make sure the money is used for non-lethal purposes?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 20, 2011, 01:15:16 PM
April 20, 2011
War in Libya Could Drag On, Military Analysts Say
By STEVEN ERLANGER
www.nyt.com





PARIS — France and Italy said on Wednesday that they would join Britain in sending some liaison officers to support the rebel army in
Libya, in what military analysts said was a sign that there will be no quick and easy end to the war in Libya.

The dispatching of the liaison officers — probably fewer than 40 of them, and carefully not designated as military trainers — is a sign also, they said, that only a combination of military pressure from the sky, economic pressure on the regime and a better-organized and coordinated rebel force will finally convince Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi that he has no option but to quit.

“Some countries thought the Libya operation could be over quickly,” said a senior NATO ambassador. “But no military commander thinks so.

Sending advisers to Libya is the latest in a series of signs of trouble for the NATO campaign, which began in earnest with a stinging, American-led attack but has seemed to fizzle since operational command was transferred to NATO on March 31. After that, a rebel offensive was smashed by Qaddafi forces, who sent the rebels reeeling toward the eastern city of Ajdabiya.

New tactics by the Qaddafi forces of mixing with civilian populations, camouflaging weapons and driving pickup trucks instead of military vehicles have made it hard for NATO pilots to find targets. At the same time, loyalist artillery and tanks have hammered the rebel-held city of Misurata, reportedly with illegal cluster bombs, making a mockery of NATO’s central mission of protecting civilians.

But as much as the new Qaddafi tactics, divisions within NATO seem to be harming the strategy, said Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. Only six of the 28 member countries are participating in the air strikes, and France and Britain are doing half of them while Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Canada are doing the rest.

Prominent nations like Italy and Spain are hanging back, and others have sent planes only to support the no-fly zone, or are helping enforce the arms embargo. The Obama administration, which has ruled out deploying American troops in Libya, announced on Wednesday that it would authorize as much as $25 million in military surplus supplies, though not weapons, to the Libyan opposition forces.

“You want to send Qaddafi a message of collective will, that there’s no way out, that he’s facing a determined and unified opposition,” he said. “And he’s seeing a European-led NATO that is not sufficiently cohesive.”

“If I were him, I would look at European disagreements and take heart from them, especially when the opposition appears so weak,” Mr. Niblett said. Colonel Qaddafi “senses there is a gap between means and ends,” he added. “He can look at divisions among members of NATO and feel he can be part of a political solution, because in the end he may feel there is not sufficient cohesion to follow the strategy through to its end,” which is his ouster.

To convince Colonel Qaddafi and his sons to leave, he added, “we need both the political and military track, and we have bits of the military and a fractured political situation, and we’re not giving the strategy the best shot.”

To some extent, the problems in NATO can be traced to changes since the end of the cold war. With the fading of the Soviet threat and its expansion to global missions outside of Europe, NATO has become less an alliance than a coalition of like-minded nations, analysts say.

“As soon as NATO went out of area it stopped being an alliance,” said François Heisbourg, a defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “In area, it is an unlimited liability partnership. But now with a global scope, everything must be negotiated, and it’s all a la carte. That’s the post-cold-war world.”

Mr. Valasek compared NATO to an American political party, “a coalition of countries with broadly the same interests, but with different views.” It was inevitable after the cold war, he said, that NATO countries would focus on different threats: terrorism and Afghanistan for some, like Washington, London, Canada and the Netherlands; Russia, for the central Europeans. “As for the rest,” he said, “I don’t even know why they stay in NATO.”

NATO will never be what it was, Mr. Valasek said. “NATO will become more of a transactional place in the future, so as in Libya, more often than not there will be coalitions of the willing, with NATO support.”

NATO officials reject the criticism, saying the alliance has done a good job in a short time and that the air campaign is working well.

“There is no question about the collective will in NATO to implement the U.N. resolution in Libya,” said Oana Lungescu, the alliance spokeswoman, pointing out that in the three weeks since NATO took over command of the operation on March 31, “we are steadily degrading Qaddafi’s ability to carry out and sustain attacks on his own people and gradually squeezing the regime’s forces.”

But just about everyone agrees “that there can’t be a military solution to the crisis as such,” Ms. Lungescu said. “This mission keeps up the pressure for a credible political solution.”

A senior NATO ambassador asked for patience. “In the end the balance will shift, it has to,” he said. “Qaddafi gets no more arms, no more tanks, no more ammo, and he gets weaker and over time the others get stronger. And at some point someone around Qaddafi decides to have a political way out.”

While Colonel Qaddafi’s foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, defected to Britain three weeks ago — where he was treated leniently, as an encouragement to others around the colonel to change sides — there have been no prominent defections since.

The current political debate, the senior NATO ambassador said, is not about whether the Libya war will end in negotiations, but the nature and context of the talks. Some countries would like to begin negotiations with Colonel Qaddafi before he leaves power, with the clear aim that he must leave. But others, particularly the rebels, say that negotiations can begin only after the colonel and his sons are safely out of the country.

For now, Mr. Valasek said, the problem is that both Colonel Qaddafi and the NATO-supported opposition think time is on their side. “It may take everyone longer to realize that this is as far as military force takes us. But unless we want a divided Libya, we need to sit down and negotiate.”

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Washington.


________________________ ________________________ _____-


obama:    "DAYS OT WEEKS" 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 20, 2011, 05:25:16 PM
The NYT is calling it a war now? Obama's going to have a talking to with their editors for that blunder.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 20, 2011, 05:28:10 PM
Al-Qaeda Spokesman Says Jihadists Fighting Alongside Libyan Rebels, Have Formed Islamic Councils in Numerous Cities

(American Thinker) — The American media are reluctant to report what the French media have made clear: Al-Qaida has established a beachhead in Libya and fully intends to install Sharia law once government forces are overcome.

An April 19th article in the prominent French daily, Le Figaro, does not shy from chronicling the obvious. It highlights an interview that Al Qaida spokesman Saleh Abi Mohammad gave to the Saudi journal Al-Hayyat, which is published in London.

According to Abi Mohammad, Al Qaida is fighting alongside the Libyan rebels in numerous cities and, in the town of Dernah, has already formed with its allies an Islamic Council, “pour gouverner la ville en vertu de la sharia.”

When asked whether Al-Qaida welcomed foreign intervention, Abi Mohammad answered, (my translation), “It is always preferable to die like a martyr than to ask the help of the crusaders.” He believes that the rebels could have prevailed without assistance, and he does not consider foreign help as “positive.”

The French author of the article accurately sums up the Al Qaida message as “rather disturbing, one that we err in underestimating.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/alqaida_confirms_involvement_i.html



So Al Qaeda isn't even hiding the fact that they're active on the ground in Libya (you'd have to be a retard to think otherwise, but that's beside the point) and yet instead of pulling out we're giving these people $25 million. I love this logic.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 20, 2011, 05:30:22 PM
So bama really can be called "osama" now for good reason correct? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 20, 2011, 05:32:49 PM
So bama really can be called "osama" now for good reason correct? 

He's done more to bring about the rise of islamic extremism in 2 months than OBL has done in the last 20 years. AQ has been working to topple these countries for years and Obama just handed them Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and so on.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 20, 2011, 05:34:11 PM
But but but but - bush, koch brothers, palin! 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 20, 2011, 05:35:10 PM
But but but but - bush, koch brothers, palin! 

Koch brothers = devil
George Soros = saint

Am I doing it right?  ;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 21, 2011, 06:14:06 AM
He's done more to bring about the rise of islamic extremism in 2 months than OBL has done in the last 20 years. AQ has been working to topple these countries for years and Obama just handed them Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and so on.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"

Edmund Burke

Guess everyone forgot about the Muj in Afghanistan in the '80's



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 21, 2011, 10:03:07 AM
He's done more to bring about the rise of islamic extremism in 2 months than OBL has done in the last 20 years. AQ has been working to topple these countries for years and Obama just handed them Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and so on.

will your hyperbole never cease???..the arabs started their own revolution..not Obama


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 21, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
will your hyperbole never cease???..the arabs started their own revolution..not Obama
;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 21, 2011, 12:37:57 PM
Obama has OK'd use of drones in Libya, Gates says
April 21st, 2011
03:41 PM ET


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/obama-has-okd-use-of-drones-in-libya-gates-says



 
 U.S. President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed Predator drones in Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

Gates told CNN the unmanned Predators would allow for "some precision capability" against the forces of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and will offer a "modest contribution" to NATO efforts to support Libyan rebels.

NATO, meanwhile, has signaled it may ramp up air strikes on Gadhafi's regime. NATO issued a new warning to Libyan civilians to stay away from military areas - foreshadowing plans for attacks on targets seen as strategically significant in stopping the government's attacks against civilians, according to a NATO military official.

Libyan rebels had recently complained that NATO was not being aggressive enough to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

Planes and missiles from a coalition including the United States, the United Kingdom and France began attacking Libyan air-defense targets March 19 in part to establish a no-fly zone. It was authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution, which approved military action –short of occupation - to prevent Gadhafi's forces from attacking civilians and cities.

The intervention came after a Libyan uprising, which began in mid-February after clashes between government forces and protesters. Opposition forces are seeking the ouster of Gadhafi, who has ruled for nearly 42 years.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 21, 2011, 01:02:13 PM
Obama has OK'd use of drones in Libya, Gates says
April 21st, 2011
03:41 PM ET


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/obama-has-okd-use-of-drones-in-libya-gates-says



 
 U.S. President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed Predator drones in Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

Gates told CNN the unmanned Predators would allow for "some precision capability" against the forces of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and will offer a "modest contribution" to NATO efforts to support Libyan rebels.

NATO, meanwhile, has signaled it may ramp up air strikes on Gadhafi's regime. NATO issued a new warning to Libyan civilians to stay away from military areas - foreshadowing plans for attacks on targets seen as strategically significant in stopping the government's attacks against civilians, according to a NATO military official.

Libyan rebels had recently complained that NATO was not being aggressive enough to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

Planes and missiles from a coalition including the United States, the United Kingdom and France began attacking Libyan air-defense targets March 19 in part to establish a no-fly zone. It was authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution, which approved military action –short of occupation - to prevent Gadhafi's forces from attacking civilians and cities.

The intervention came after a Libyan uprising, which began in mid-February after clashes between government forces and protesters. Opposition forces are seeking the ouster of Gadhafi, who has ruled for nearly 42 years.



BUMP




BUMP




BUMP   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 21, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
Obama has OK'd use of drones in Libya, Gates says
April 21st, 2011
03:41 PM ET


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/obama-has-okd-use-of-drones-in-libya-gates-says



 
 U.S. President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed Predator drones in Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

Gates told CNN the unmanned Predators would allow for "some precision capability" against the forces of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and will offer a "modest contribution" to NATO efforts to support Libyan rebels.

NATO, meanwhile, has signaled it may ramp up air strikes on Gadhafi's regime. NATO issued a new warning to Libyan civilians to stay away from military areas - foreshadowing plans for attacks on targets seen as strategically significant in stopping the government's attacks against civilians, according to a NATO military official.

Libyan rebels had recently complained that NATO was not being aggressive enough to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

Planes and missiles from a coalition including the United States, the United Kingdom and France began attacking Libyan air-defense targets March 19 in part to establish a no-fly zone. It was authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution, which approved military action –short of occupation - to prevent Gadhafi's forces from attacking civilians and cities.

The intervention came after a Libyan uprising, which began in mid-February after clashes between government forces and protesters. Opposition forces are seeking the ouster of Gadhafi, who has ruled for nearly 42 years.


I see NATO's mandate has gone from "prevent a massacre" to "offensive drone attacks and regime change".

Cue that fucktard "andreisadouche" to sing his Messiah's praises while said Messiah lies right to his face.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 21, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
I see NATO's mandate has gone from "prevent a massacre" to "offensive drone attacks and regime change".

Cue that fucktard "andreisadouche" to sing his Messiah's praises while said Messiah lies right to his face.


if American boots go on the ground then it will be considered a lie..other than that, he is well within his rights....cut the nonsense will you???


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 21, 2011, 05:44:42 PM
Ha ha ha ha - batchelor already saying these drone attacks are deperate and a sign of panic.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 21, 2011, 05:45:12 PM

if American boots go on the ground then it will be considered a lie..other than that, he is well within his rights....cut the nonsense will you???

Well within his rights to do what? I guess you don't know how PGM's work, but somebody has to mark targets, and I can guarantee you it isn't the incompetent rebels that are doing it. The 1st Armored Division may not be in Libya, but SF has been there since the air campaign began.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 21, 2011, 06:16:29 PM

if American boots go on the ground then it will be considered a lie..other than that, he is well within his rights....cut the nonsense will you???

You're quickly becoming the biggest joke on this forum.

The NATO mandate does not legalize a ground invasion. Good luck getting ground troops past Congress even with your claim that he's "within his rights".

Bush 2.0 yet inferior at the same time. Bad combination.  

The only good that will come of this is Samantha Power's clout and her idiotic "R2P" theory are going straight into the toilet. Serves that dumb bitch right.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 22, 2011, 04:23:37 AM
Are We Losing In Libya?
IBD Editorials ^ | April 21, 2011 | Staff




Military: When the U.S. goes to war, it must always be with crystal-clear objectives, plus an ironclad commitment to winning. In Libya, our objectives are muddled while our resolution is in doubt.

When the Pentagon brass and Defense Secretary Robert Gates let President Obama know they opposed his Libyan adventure in multilateralism, Obama sweetened the idea for them by promising that U.S. involvement would be limited.

That says it all, because as a disquieting analysis last Monday by Los Angeles Times reporters David Cloud and Ned Parker put it, "If the alliance's most powerful member isn't willing to escalate, few other members will be eager to do so."

Indeed, prominent members of the British and French governments have publicly opposed what they fear will be a Vietnam-style escalation; France's foreign and defense ministers both made strong statements against deploying ground forces.

Americans, too, are ambivalent about going it alone. A recent IBD/TIPP Poll shows they think it was important to get U.N. approval for action in Libya (see chart).

So what to do now, with Moammar Gadhafi so uncooperative about losing a war with America?

As in eras gone by, the U.S. is expected to lead; the Euro dawdlers just aren't going to fill any responsibility vacuums we leave for them.


(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 22, 2011, 12:07:51 PM
DHS Can’t Account for 10 Libyan Men It Caught and Released Inside U.S.
CNS News ^ | 4/22/11 | Penny Starr





(CNSNews.com) - Even as President Barack Obama continued the U.S. military intervention in Libya’s civil war--with armed Predator drones beginning patrols over that North African country on Thursday--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing immigration laws, could not account for 10 Libyan men it had caught and released inside the United States since July 2009.

After two weeks of inquiries about the Libyans from CNSNews.com, ICE finally responded on Thursday afternoon that it had already released to CNSNews.com all the information that was “available” on these Libyans and that the agency had “nothing more to add on the matter.”

ICE describes itself as “the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the second largest investigative agency in the federal government.” It says its “primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.”


(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 23, 2011, 06:23:53 AM
US confirms first Predator strike in Libya
 Source: BBC


The US military has confirmed the first strike by an unmanned Predator drone aircraft in Libya.

The Pentagon did not provide details of the target, but said that it occurred in the early afternoon local time.

Drones can hit military targets more easily in urban areas, minimising the risk of civilian casualties.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13176645 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Neurotoxin on April 23, 2011, 07:33:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Listen closely.....Sheep.





"Clowns to the Left......Sheep to the Right"


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 23, 2011, 08:05:22 AM
This is Islamic freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAqcd5WgHY

McCain’s Libyan “Heroes” Videotaped Beheading Captured Soldier

BENGHAZI, Libya (CBS News) — U.S. Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the American military intervention in Libya, called Friday for increased international military support of the rebel fighters.

“They are my heroes,” McCain said of the rebels as he walked out of a local hotel in Benghazi. He was traveling in an armored Mercedes jeep and had a security detail. A few Libyans waved American flags as his vehicle drove past.

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya, CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey said the arrival of McCain is exactly the kind of VIP trip the Transitional National Council has been looking for.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/501364/main20056366.shtml




These guys are my heroes, too!  ::)

Cue andreisdaman to tell us about their freedoms or some shit.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 23, 2011, 08:10:31 AM
Time to message a mod and have this troll's posts cleaned up. What's the matter? Feeling butt-hurt that no one is paying attention to your posts on the A board?

Let's see how the "report to moderator" button works.  :D :D :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 23, 2011, 09:12:06 AM
This is Islamic freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAqcd5WgHY

McCain’s Libyan “Heroes” Videotaped Beheading Captured Soldier

BENGHAZI, Libya (CBS News) — U.S. Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the American military intervention in Libya, called Friday for increased international military support of the rebel fighters.

“They are my heroes,” McCain said of the rebels as he walked out of a local hotel in Benghazi. He was traveling in an armored Mercedes jeep and had a security detail. A few Libyans waved American flags as his vehicle drove past.

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya, CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey said the arrival of McCain is exactly the kind of VIP trip the Transitional National Council has been looking for.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/501364/main20056366.shtml




These guys are my heroes, too!  ::)

Cue andreisdaman to tell us about their freedoms or some shit.


McCain is freaking nuts.     What a fool


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on April 23, 2011, 10:46:57 AM

McCain is freaking nuts.     What a fool

Truth.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 24, 2011, 08:22:56 AM
Military: When the U.S. goes to war, it must always be with crystal-clear objectives, plus an ironclad commitment to winning.

33,

Do you believe the US publicly lists the goals of each war 100% honestly?

Or do you think sometimes they say one thing and do another?

I mean, if we wanted to defeat kadaffi, we'd level his capital city in 5 minutes, shock n awe style.

I think every day we see the "CT" that we're just there to undermine the leadershp and the al-Q rebels - helping two sets of bad guys kill each other.

Call it crazy.. but as time passes, that is exactly what's being accomplished here.  Five years from now, when the nation is weak and undermined and at US/Eur mercy, Al-Q from all over the region has died in the streets of libya, and kadaffi's been pissing in a pot in a basement for 5 years...  well, that will be what we've acheved - despite whatever PR BS obama says on tv for rush/beck to whine about.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 24, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
This is Islamic freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAqcd5WgHY

McCain’s Libyan “Heroes” Videotaped Beheading Captured Soldier

BENGHAZI, Libya (CBS News) — U.S. Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the American military intervention in Libya, called Friday for increased international military support of the rebel fighters.

“They are my heroes,” McCain said of the rebels as he walked out of a local hotel in Benghazi. He was traveling in an armored Mercedes jeep and had a security detail. A few Libyans waved American flags as his vehicle drove past.

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya, CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey said the arrival of McCain is exactly the kind of VIP trip the Transitional National Council has been looking for.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/501364/main20056366.shtml




These guys are my heroes, too!  ::)

Cue andreisdaman to tell us about their freedoms or some shit.

uhhh..excuse me..isn't mcCain a conservative//..and didn't many of you on here say you would have voted for him over obama./??..now you see that mcCain is actually LEFT of obama!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 24, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Andre - want to meet ron paul and schiff tommorow?   Ill pick you up? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 24, 2011, 04:40:58 PM
uhhh..excuse me..isn't mcCain a conservative//..and didn't many of you on here say you would have voted for him over obama./??..now you see that mcCain is actually LEFT of obama!!

this is the problem - a shitload of repubs were yelling about the need to BOMB kadaffi with the no fly zone.  They bitched obama wasn't doing enough.

now that he's doing it - they're verrrry quiet.  mccain, newt, graham, and others.  Hell, senate res 84... they voted 100 to 0 for the no fly zone.  Every single repub senator voted for it - with zero objections noted.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 24, 2011, 05:08:09 PM
33,

Do you believe the US publicly lists the goals of each war 100% honestly?

Or do you think sometimes they say one thing and do another?

I mean, if we wanted to defeat kadaffi, we'd level his capital city in 5 minutes, shock n awe style.

I think every day we see the "CT" that we're just there to undermine the leadershp and the al-Q rebels - helping two sets of bad guys kill each other.

Call it crazy.. but as time passes, that is exactly what's being accomplished here.  Five years from now, when the nation is weak and undermined and at US/Eur mercy, Al-Q from all over the region has died in the streets of libya, and kadaffi's been pissing in a pot in a basement for 5 years...  well, that will be what we've acheved - despite whatever PR BS obama says on tv for rush/beck to whine about.

Don't bring your CT trash into here. Either substantiate it or shut up. Every claim you've made to this point has ended up being pathetically wrong. If you want to throw wild CTs around like you're doing, go start your own thread on the CT board with the other moonbots.

"Blah, blah, Repubs this, Repubs that. Obama good, Gadhafi bad. 5 years from now Obama will be revered for this catastrophe. Oooga oooga booga." That's what 99.99% of your posts sound like and they're shitting up this thread.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 24, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Don't bring your CT trash into here. Either substantiate it or shut up.

You want some proof that the govt will often release a lie publicly, while doing something else or seeking another outcome, behind the scenes?

Gee whiz, I don't think I could find anything like that.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 24, 2011, 05:49:18 PM
You want some proof that the govt will often release a lie publicly, while doing something else or seeking another outcome, behind the scenes?

Gee whiz, I don't think I could find anything like that.

So you can't substantiate the fabricated CTs you're pulling out of thin air then?

I, 333 and others have posted dozens of articles from various sources in this thread. You have posted nothing but some stupid theories you've continually pulled out of thin air in your attempt to justify this war and defend your Messiah. This not the CT board and your stupid, unfounded claims and theories are shitting up this thread. Either substantiate them or feel free to start your own Libya thread on the CT board.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 24, 2011, 05:55:19 PM
hey, i'm saying it's my belief there's a lot of shit going on in libya other than what CNN is telling us. 

Intel ppl on the ground, undermining both sides, looking to inflict the most possible potential damage upon both current and future enemies.  Do we really want the al-Q laden rebels to win in a cakewalk?  or would it be better if, 6 months from now, kadaffi gets' off'd by someone, the rebels lose/win/whatever, and we have ten thousand dead jihadists without losing a single man?

So it's my belief.  And every day obama half-asses it... it makes me think more and more, that the real goal is to let both sides finish bloodied up.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 24, 2011, 05:58:03 PM
Please. What you're doing is derailing the thread while attempting to defend your God-King with your trashy CTs and unsubstantiated CONSPIRACY theories. You haven't posted a single article in this thread that supports or even posits the stupid claims you're throwing out.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: George Whorewell on April 24, 2011, 06:00:43 PM
Please. What you're doing is derailing the thread while attempting to defend your God-King with your trashy CTs and unsubstantiated CONSPIRACY theories. You haven't posted a single article in this thread that supports or even posits the stupid claims you're throwing out.

Does he ever? Unless its some idiotic article about Sarah Palin's menstrual cycle, 240 just recklessly offers Ct's out of thin air.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 24, 2011, 06:03:44 PM
Does he ever? Unless its some idiotic article about Sarah Palin's menstrual cycle, 240 just recklessly offers Ct's out of thin air.

You're right, he doesn't. He thinks playing "devil's advocate" is his "get out of jail free" response to the claims that he's not an Obama drone.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 24, 2011, 07:18:41 PM
i do go fringe CTer sometimes... sorry about that....

but seriously, on this issue, let's look at the facts of what has actually happened...

obama didn't act until kadaffi killed a shitload of rebels.  A lot of kadaffis' armies - and air force/tanks/troops, were suddenly all exposed as they advanced and surrounded that final city.

Then, Obama acted with some serious fury, killing an assload of kadaffi's men, ending his air force for years to come, scrapping plenty of tanks and trucks...

Then, he suddenly turned everything over to NATO, which didn't do much, as expected.  Rebels and their newfound jihadists that wandered in to help rebels are getting their asses kicked again as they're fighting with toy guns.

AND now that kadaffi is probably about to finish them - suddenly he's sending shitload of predators over, to blow up some moer of kadaffi's guys.

It's almost like the rebels are bait to bring out his forces so we can justifiably and easily kill the.  And since they're bait soaked in al-Q remnants, nobody cries for them.


you have two sides in a conflict - both sides are our enemy - killing each other.  We don't let either side win - we just give the rebels enough air support and help to keep fighting, and let the army win long enough to expose themselves for more strikes, now with predators.


So forget this being a CT - tell me whyit doesn't really look like our goal is to create and fuel a sitation where two groups of a-holes kill each other.   You can cite incompetence, but the longer we see the US only intervene long enough to keep the conflict alive, you begin to wonder...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 03:15:14 AM
Unreal.  We look weak and incompentent to say the least. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 04:06:06 AM
Strike on Gadhafi compound badly damages buildings
Yahoo ^ | 4/24/11 | Karin Laub and Diaa Hadid - Associated Press




TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO airstrikes targeted the center of Moammar Gadhafi's seat of power early Monday, destroying a multi-story library and office and badly damaging a reception hall for visiting dignitaries.

Gadhafi's whereabouts at the time of the attack on his sprawling Bab al-Azizya compound were unclear. A security official at the scene said four people were lightly hurt.

Monday's strike came after Gadhafi's forces unleashed a barrage of shells and rockets at the besieged rebel city of Misrata, in an especially bloody weekend that left at least 32 dead and dozens wounded.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 04:33:32 AM
Unreal.  We look weak and incompentent to say the least. 

eh, at this point, who gives an F what people think?

We look weak with 900 military bases, dropping jdam's on kadaffi's bedroom? 

We look weak shutting down libya's military in about 19 minutes?  lol

If we are able to kill/destabilize an american-killer like kadaffi, leave 10k jihadists dead with zero US casualty, then i'm not worried about "looking weak".  We have a 75 foot penis with all those military bases and the ability to decimate at will.  "Looking weak"?  LOL... We could have taken over in 5 days... yet we drag it out, as they kill each other.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 04:35:12 AM
eh, at this point, who gives an F what people think?

We look weak with 900 military bases, dropping jdam's on kadaffi's bedroom? 

We look weak shutting down libya's military in about 19 minutes?  lol

If we are able to kill/destabilize an american-killer like kadaffi, leave 10k jihadists dead with zero US casualty, then i'm not worried about "looking weak".  We have a 75 foot penis with all those military bases and the ability to decimate at will.  "Looking weak"?  LOL... We could have taken over in 5 days... yet we drag it out, as they kill each other.



Obama - "Days not weeks"   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 04:39:51 AM
Obama - "Days not weeks"   

you can play 'gotcha' with obama on his media PR bs statements all day.  In the meantime, 2 sets of bad guys are offing each other as we deliver 10% of what we're capable of doing there.  You can win the "i told ya so" with lame media statements.  Obama's facilitating the killing of al-Q and liyan military - by each other.

But hey, gotcha barry, you said it'd be days!  #losing!  let's all give kadaffi a BJ guys!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 04:43:37 AM
you can play 'gotcha' with obama on his media PR bs statements all day.  In the meantime, 2 sets of bad guys are offing each other as we deliver 10% of what we're capable of doing there.  You can win the "i told ya so" with lame media statements.  Obama's facilitating the killing of al-Q and liyan military - by each other.

But hey, gotcha barry, you said it'd be days!  #losing!  let's all give kadaffi a BJ guys!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 05:50:40 AM
you can play 'gotcha' with obama on his media PR bs statements all day.  In the meantime, 2 sets of bad guys are offing each other as we deliver 10% of what we're capable of doing there.  You can win the "i told ya so" with lame media statements.  Obama's facilitating the killing of al-Q and liyan military - by each other.

But hey, gotcha barry, you said it'd be days!  #losing!  let's all give kadaffi a BJ guys!

You still don't get it do you? This is a Eu orchestrated cluster fuck, they want/need Gadhafi gone. And as far as your theory about bad guys killing each other off, hey that has never back fired on us before has it ::) I still don't understand all this half assing around, we have been doing it since Korea.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 08:05:43 AM
You still don't get it do you? This is a Eu orchestrated cluster fuck, they want/need Gadhafi gone. And as far as your theory about bad guys killing each other off, hey that has never back fired on us before has it ::) I still don't understand all this half assing around, we have been doing it since Korea.

So we're talking 60 years of US policy... and we're the world's #1 superpower, the only superpower...

I dunno, maybe it works if the people running our country since 1950 believe in it.  help 2 sets of enemies decimate one another.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 08:37:28 AM
So we're talking 60 years of US policy... and we're the world's #1 superpower, the only superpower...

I dunno, maybe it works if the people running our country since 1950 believe in it.  help 2 sets of enemies decimate one another.

Wake up, we still have an increasingly hostile and nuclear North Korea, that worked out well ::)
Vietnam - we lost 58000 Americans to walk away and allow the communist to take over at this point it is a wash, Nam really no threat to us.
80's Afghanistan - Armed and trained AQ for all intensive purposes, that didn't come back to fuck us did it? Managed to bleed the Soviets in the process, traded one enemy that was kept in check by MAD for one that doesn't give a shit.
Desert Storm - Left Saddam in power, and surprise surprise we are back in Iraq.

Winning the hearts and minds strategy has really worked out well, so lets try it again in the ME of all places ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 09:42:39 AM
Wake up, we still have an increasingly hostile and nuclear North Korea, that worked out well ::)
Vietnam - we lost 58000 Americans to walk away and allow the communist to take over at this point it is a wash, Nam really no threat to us.
80's Afghanistan - Armed and trained AQ for all intensive purposes, that didn't come back to fuck us did it? Managed to bleed the Soviets in the process, traded one enemy that was kept in check by MAD for one that doesn't give a shit.
Desert Storm - Left Saddam in power, and surprise surprise we are back in Iraq.

Winning the hearts and minds strategy has really worked out well, so lets try it again in the ME of all places ::)

one could argue the bases there aren't designed to deal with the small-time neighbor as much as they are potential bases of operation for "real" conflicts - such as Russia or China simultaneously launching nukes at us one day.  The ability to strike Moscow from Europe and Beijing from Vietnam, before their birds even hit DC, is a huge deterrant to their launching on us.

Look at the line of bases in iraq and the similar line in afghanistan.  Perfect wall against China, india, whoever.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 09:44:13 AM
one could argue the bases there aren't designed to deal with the small-time neighbor as much as they are potential bases of operation for "real" conflicts - such as Russia or China simultaneously launching nukes at us one day.  The ability to strike Moscow from Europe and Beijing from Vietnam, before their birds even hit DC, is a huge deterrant to their launching on us.

Look at the line of bases in iraq and the similar line in afghanistan.  Perfect wall against China, india, whoever.


Obama does not believe anything along those lines.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 09:52:21 AM

Obama does not believe anything along those lines.   

it is my belief that neither obama, nor bush, nor clinton, nor any president makes these long-term planning decisions.  The joint chiefs do.  They don't let some wussy leader, subject to polls that change with the wind.  These bases are all over the world and ensure nobody ever takes out the USA without MAD, mutual assured destruction. 

So if you want to make this about dem/repub, you're farting in the wind dude.  it is what it is.  Those bases keep us safe against big and small threats and will be there hundreds of years from now.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 09:59:35 AM
it is my belief that neither obama, nor bush, nor clinton, nor any president makes these long-term planning decisions.  The joint chiefs do.  They don't let some wussy leader, subject to polls that change with the wind.  These bases are all over the world and ensure nobody ever takes out the USA without MAD, mutual assured destruction. 

So if you want to make this about dem/repub, you're farting in the wind dude.  it is what it is.  Those bases keep us safe against big and small threats and will be there hundreds of years from now.

Hey - notice how blacken and Lurker dont trust you to be the judge of our little debate?   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 10:34:11 AM
one could argue the bases there aren't designed to deal with the small-time neighbor as much as they are potential bases of operation for "real" conflicts - such as Russia or China simultaneously launching nukes at us one day.  The ability to strike Moscow from Europe and Beijing from Vietnam, before their birds even hit DC, is a huge deterrant to their launching on us.

Look at the line of bases in iraq and the similar line in afghanistan.  Perfect wall against China, india, whoever.

Huh?  Are you nuts we have what 30K in the DMZ in NK what exactly is that going to do against 2.5 million if they decided to use conventional tactics? Same goes for the Russians, they will overwhelm with sheer numbers. A strike on Moscow of Beijing could more easily be carried out by subs, but that's right we cut those with that dumbass START treaty ::)

The only deterent the bases server is so the local dictators don't get to froggy, to the big boys they a nuisance at best


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 25, 2011, 01:08:35 PM

Obama does not believe anything along those lines.   

he doesn't have to...the president is hostage to pentagon military strategy..if the generals say they need the bases then we will have them....its amazing how you guys try to tie everything in the world back to Obama...this shows the mental illness you guys have concerning him,,,meanwhile when its something positive, you guys say Obama has nothing to do with it...

I love laughing at you guys..keep up the good work please....you guys are hilarious!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 01:09:17 PM
he doesn't have to...the president is hostage to pentagon military strategy..if the generals say they need the bases then we will have them....its amazing how you guys try to tie everything in the world back to Obama...this shows the mental illness you guys have concerning him,,,meanwhile when its something positive, you guys say Obama has nothing to do with it...

I love laughing at you guys..keep up the good work please....you guys are hilarious!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 25, 2011, 01:13:40 PM
Huh?  Are you nuts we have what 30K in the DMZ in NK what exactly is that going to do against 2.5 million if they decided to use conventional tactics? Same goes for the Russians, they will overwhelm with sheer numbers. A strike on Moscow of Beijing could more easily be carried out by subs, but that's right we cut those with that dumbass START treaty ::)

The only deterent the bases server is so the local dictators don't get to froggy, to the big boys they a nuisance at best

The reason we keep small numbers of troops in these areas is to signal to those that have overwhelming might that spilling U.S. blood will automatically trigger our involvement and that involvement may not be just conventional but nuclear as well...

This poses a problem for leaders of potentially belligerent countries that any aggression towards an ally might trigger a nuclear response..which psychologically keeps these potential adversaries at bay...this strategy by the U.S., actually costs less than having divisions upon divisions of standing armies bogged down in foreign countries


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 01:15:19 PM
he doesn't have to...the president is hostage to pentagon military strategy..if the generals say they need the bases then we will have them....its amazing how you guys try to tie everything in the world back to Obama...this shows the mental illness you guys have concerning him,,,meanwhile when its something positive, you guys say Obama has nothing to do with it...

I love laughing at you guys..keep up the good work please....you guys are hilarious!!!

Is or is not the POTUS the CIC?, Does the POTUS have a say in who is a member of the JCOS?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 25, 2011, 01:17:19 PM
Is or is not the POTUS the CIC?, Does the POTUS have a say in who is a member of the JCOS?

yes you are correct about this but he does not know military strategy..he depends on the generals to tell him things and explain things to him and then he goes from there and makes his decisions


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 01:19:19 PM
yes you are correct about this but he does not know military strategy..he depends on the generals to tell him things and explain things to him and then he goes from there and makes his decisions

Then he is not held hostage by the military strategy of the Pentagon, because his people are the ones making the strategy.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 01:24:06 PM
The reason we keep small numbers of troops in these areas is to signal to those that have overwhelming might that spilling U.S. blood will automatically trigger our involvement and that involvement may not be just conventional but nuclear as well...

This poses a problem for leaders of potentially belligerent countries that any aggression towards an ally might trigger a nuclear response..which psychologically keeps these potential adversaries at bay...this strategy by the U.S., actually costs less than having divisions upon divisions of standing armies bogged down in foreign countries

The Korean war never ended, 1953 was a cease fire, not a surrender by either side. We keeps troops in the DMZ because we are still at war with North Korea. Not to mention the fact that we have for all intensive purposes taken over the defense of Europe.
It is the same reason we had troops in SA, the Iraq war didn't end, there was a cease fire.

But when all is said and done I believe I said basically the same thing, troops are in most places to keep the local dictator in line.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 25, 2011, 01:25:09 PM
Then he is not held hostage by the military strategy of the Pentagon, because his people are the ones making the strategy.

what I meant by my statement is that the president DOES NOT CONCEPTUALIZE MILITARY DOCTRINE...the generals do so and present him with options..he then makes the final decision..but he is basically deciding on MILITARY OPTIONS not his own


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 01:26:10 PM
what I meant by my statement is that the president DOES NOT CONCEPTUALIZE MILITARY DOCTRINE...the generals do so and present him with options..he then makes the final decision..but he is basically deciding on MILITARY OPTIONS not his own

Andre - I will be at Webster Hall tonight to hear Schiff and Ron Paul speak.  Wanna to meet there?  I will bring my legal credentialsand drivers license andlurkers and blacken and cen delete their accounts?   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 25, 2011, 01:29:44 PM
what I meant by my statement is that the president DOES NOT CONCEPTUALIZE MILITARY DOCTRINE...the generals do so and present him with options..he then makes the final decision..but he is basically deciding on MILITARY OPTIONS not his own

That's fine but he is going to appoint people that are going to carry out his vision of what military strategy should be employed. Every once in a while we get an LBJ who decides to be directly involved in all military planning, but for the most part the POTUS appoints people that share his point of view.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 25, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Andre - I will be at Webster Hall tonight to hear Schiff and Ron Paul speak.  Wanna to meet there?  I will bring my legal credentialsand drivers license andlurkers and blacken and cen delete their accounts?   

WOW...I wish you would have informed me beforehand as I would have loved to have met the great 3333 in person...but I have a psychology paper I must have in by midnight tonight...listening to Ron Paul speak would have been great as well.....

I do agree that we have got to get together soon....we live nearby...we probably =need to debate in person...and I guess you can show me your credentials..but I doubt those guys will really delete their accounts,,,but at least you will have one up on them

by the way....where is Webster Hall? At Fordham University?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
WOW...I wish you would have informed me beforehand as I would have loved to have met the great 3333 in person...but I have a psychology paper I must have in by midnight tonight...listening to Ron Paul speak would have been great as well.....

I do agree that we have got to get together soon....we live nearby...we probably =need to debate in person...and I guess you can show me your credentials..but I doubt those guys will really delete their accounts,,,but at least you will have one up on them

by the way....where is Webster Hall? At Fordham University?

SOHO





Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 25, 2011, 04:43:51 PM
Huh?  Are you nuts we have what 30K in the DMZ in NK what exactly is that going to do against 2.5 million if they decided to use conventional tactics? Same goes for the Russians, they will overwhelm with sheer numbers. A strike on Moscow of Beijing could more easily be carried out by subs, but that's right we cut those with that dumbass START treaty ::)

The only deterent the bases server is so the local dictators don't get to froggy, to the big boys they a nuisance at best

240 is a fucking douche bag who can't substantiate any of the bullshit claims he makes. His posts in this thread belong on the CT board with the rest of the fictitious trash he conjures up from his trailer.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 04:49:37 PM
240 is a fucking douche bag who can't substantiate any of the bullshit claims he makes. His posts in this thread belong on the CT board with the rest of the fictitious trash he conjures up from his trailer.

i'm a dbag, no doubt about it it.  can't argue that.

Just telll me this... how many months of "Obama only helps rebels enough to draw out froces, bomb them, the lets them get slaughtered for a few weeks" will it take until you agree with me?

cause he could have helped the rebels to a win by now.  EASILY.  He keeps letting them get mauled long enough to draw out troops, then he bombs them.  Draw out the enemiy, then predator bomb their asses.

How many months of this little game until you say "wow, maybe he's just getting off on killing ppl on both sides?"

I mean, 5 years of this shit, and i think even you'd agree with me.  It's been what, 6 or 7 weeks of it?  Give me an idea here.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 25, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Months of what, dick head? Have you seen these rebels? They have NOTHING. From day one they have had NOTHING and they will continue to have NOTHING. They are incompetent, inept, inexperienced, cowardly and pathetic. There is nothing to whittle away because they have nothing of value. They are not a fighting force. They are not a military, a government or good human beings, for that matter.

They are Islamist trash not fit for existence on this planet and should be treated as such.

And no, he can't help them win because the American public will castrate him should he put US boots on the ground. It has nothing to do with his CT-laced plan and everything to do with the fact that this war, from day one, has enjoyed the lowest popular support of any military action in the last 3-4 decades. That's why this war isn't over.

Funny, though, considering you were one of the "Gadhafi will be gone in days" crowd.  ::)

Defend Obama and try to spin this shit all you want. It is going to go down as a failure no matter how hard you try.







Islamist Websites Recruiting For Jihad in Libya: “The Market of Paradise Has Opened And The Virgins Are Waiting”

(The Australian) — As the military and humanitarian quagmire in Libya deepens, a clarion call has gone out to followers of the global jihadist movement in the West.

“Who wants to join the mujahidin? The gates of jihad are open in Libya!” declares a message posted on a pro al-Qa’ida internet forum monitored by Western analysts.

The message — and countless others like it — has set off alarms in counter-terrorism circles in the West, as al-Qa’ida and its allies move to exploit the foment in the Arab world, seizing on the conflict in Libya as a new cause celebre for Islamic militants. And as yesterday’s WikiLeaks release shows, al-Qa’ida suspects freed from Guantanamo Bay are at work in Libya.

A report from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation says internet jihadists are portraying Libya as the newest front in the global jihad against the West, in a policy dictated by al-Qa’ida’s top leaders.

“Senior leadership figures, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, have given a number of sermons concentrating almost solely on Libya and portraying it as the most fertile ground for their global movement,” says the report’s author, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, a research fellow at ICSR. He says Zawahiri’s call has been echoed on English-language jihadist forums.

“The Western Salafi-jihadi movement is attempting to take ownership of the rebellion on behalf of the global jihad, and is portraying anti-Gaddafi forces as mujahidin, while also encouraging Western Muslims to do all they can to reach the country and take part in a supposed jihad.”

The ICSR has monitored a stream of communications on al-Qa’ida run and backed websites and forums since the Arab spring began. A typical post says: “My brothers and sisters, we are facing a global change, Alhamdulillah [praise God]! We will see this uprising continuing in all Muslim countries and soon we will see the banner of Allah everywhere!”

The forums are full of news of the exploits of jihadist fighters who have joined “Islamic battalions” in Libya under names such as the Thunderbolt Battalion and the Islamic Army of Benghazi, and so-called exclusive pictures of fighters purporting to be mujahidin on the front lines, accompanied by messages urging new recruits to join them. They provide directions on how best to travel to Libya, along with this incentive: “The market of paradise has opened and the hoor al ayn [virgins promised to martyrs] are waiting.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/libya-ripe-for-jihads-rallying-cries/story-e6frg6z6-1226044640098


What this article forgot to mention is that these Islamists will be getting US weapons and training free of charge. Hurray!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 05:04:07 PM
i agree they have nothing.

BUT IMO, their only purpose is to draw out kadaffi's army, witht he sole purpose of carpet bombing their asses from unmanned planes once they're visible, as they move in to finish the rebels.

It's actually a depiction of obama as more evil than 33 would say.. using rebels as panws to justifiably kill kadaffi's forces so the EU will have stronger position for oil prices.

i can't think the generals - who are running the war as we all know - are hapless here.  I think thye wanna see a shitload of dead libyans, PERIOD.   And so far, taht's what thye're getting.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 25, 2011, 05:12:26 PM
Of course you can't produce a single article or any evidence whatsoever that this is Obama's game plan.

This is you trying to make Obama look smart and like he's a master of foreign policy. Protip: It isn't working. He is the biggest foreign policy failure this country has seen since Jimmeh "I've never met a Communist or Islamist thug I didn't love" Carter.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 25, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
Of course you can't produce a single article or any evidence whatsoever that this is Obama's game plan.

This is you trying to make Obama look smart and like he's a master of foreign policy. Protip: It isn't working. He is the biggest foreign policy failure this country has seen since Jimmeh "I've never met a Communist or Islamist thug I didn't love" Carter.

how the hell would i have access to any such documents?  ???

I'm posting my theory.  let's give it time... see if it ends up correct.

i said he's a puppet of the JCOS who are doing this.  Does that make him look like a master of foreign policy?  um no.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on April 25, 2011, 05:25:55 PM

i can't think the generals - who are running the war as we all know - are hapless here.  I think thye wanna see a shitload of dead libyans, PERIOD.   And so far, taht's what thye're getting.


Damn dude, just hit StrawMan level there.  Yep, that's exactly what the Joint Chiefs want.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 25, 2011, 05:36:09 PM

Damn dude, just hit StrawMan level there.  Yep, that's exactly what the Joint Chiefs want.  ::)

Yeah, man. It's all part of their grand plan because, you know, Libya was such a military juggernaut before this war. That Obama's a genius! ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 25, 2011, 05:38:19 PM
Its a real black eye for the nation. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 06:26:41 AM
i'm a dbag, no doubt about it it.  can't argue that.

Just telll me this... how many months of "Obama only helps rebels enough to draw out froces, bomb them, the lets them get slaughtered for a few weeks" will it take until you agree with me?

cause he could have helped the rebels to a win by now.  EASILY.  He keeps letting them get mauled long enough to draw out troops, then he bombs them.  Draw out the enemiy, then predator bomb their asses.

How many months of this little game until you say "wow, maybe he's just getting off on killing ppl on both sides?"

I mean, 5 years of this shit, and i think even you'd agree with me.  It's been what, 6 or 7 weeks of it?  Give me an idea here.

Yes it's all according to plan ::) It's called incompetence, in other words Obama thought Qaddafi would be dead or looking for a way out by now. Well he's not, and I guess we didn't learn a fucking thing from dealing with the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 80's.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 06:29:58 AM
i agree they have nothing.

BUT IMO, their only purpose is to draw out kadaffi's army, witht he sole purpose of carpet bombing their asses from unmanned planes once they're visible, as they move in to finish the rebels.

It's actually a depiction of obama as more evil than 33 would say.. using rebels as panws to justifiably kill kadaffi's forces so the EU will have stronger position for oil prices.

i can't think the generals - who are running the war as we all know - are hapless here.  I think thye wanna see a shitload of dead libyans, PERIOD.   And so far, taht's what thye're getting.

I believe we tried that in a place called Vietnam, how'd that turn out? It amazes me, do people not know history or just have short memories? Hell we carpet bombed the VC for what 10 years and had troops on the ground. The difference being is the VC were actually a legitimate fighting force the "rebels" are a bunch of unorganized jack wagons who would be a memory at this point, if not for the "kinetic military action". What the fuck is the point now? Assassinate Quadaffi? I though that was a no-no in US foreign policy? What happened to the NFZ, don't think we have seen the Libyan airforce off the ground in a couple months.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 07:07:22 AM
Months of what, dick head? Have you seen these rebels? They have NOTHING. From day one they have had NOTHING and they will continue to have NOTHING. They are incompetent, inept, inexperienced, cowardly and pathetic. There is nothing to whittle away because they have nothing of value. They are not a fighting force. They are not a military, a government or good human beings, for that matter.

They are Islamist trash not fit for existence on this planet and should be treated as such.

And no, he can't help them win because the American public will castrate him should he put US boots on the ground. It has nothing to do with his CT-laced plan and everything to do with the fact that this war, from day one, has enjoyed the lowest popular support of any military action in the last 3-4 decades. That's why this war isn't over.

Funny, though, considering you were one of the "Gadhafi will be gone in days" crowd.  ::)

Defend Obama and try to spin this shit all you want. It is going to go down as a failure no matter how hard you try.







Islamist Websites Recruiting For Jihad in Libya: “The Market of Paradise Has Opened And The Virgins Are Waiting”

(The Australian) — As the military and humanitarian quagmire in Libya deepens, a clarion call has gone out to followers of the global jihadist movement in the West.

“Who wants to join the mujahidin? The gates of jihad are open in Libya!” declares a message posted on a pro al-Qa’ida internet forum monitored by Western analysts.

The message — and countless others like it — has set off alarms in counter-terrorism circles in the West, as al-Qa’ida and its allies move to exploit the foment in the Arab world, seizing on the conflict in Libya as a new cause celebre for Islamic militants. And as yesterday’s WikiLeaks release shows, al-Qa’ida suspects freed from Guantanamo Bay are at work in Libya.

A report from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation says internet jihadists are portraying Libya as the newest front in the global jihad against the West, in a policy dictated by al-Qa’ida’s top leaders.

“Senior leadership figures, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, have given a number of sermons concentrating almost solely on Libya and portraying it as the most fertile ground for their global movement,” says the report’s author, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, a research fellow at ICSR. He says Zawahiri’s call has been echoed on English-language jihadist forums.

“The Western Salafi-jihadi movement is attempting to take ownership of the rebellion on behalf of the global jihad, and is portraying anti-Gaddafi forces as mujahidin, while also encouraging Western Muslims to do all they can to reach the country and take part in a supposed jihad.”

The ICSR has monitored a stream of communications on al-Qa’ida run and backed websites and forums since the Arab spring began. A typical post says: “My brothers and sisters, we are facing a global change, Alhamdulillah [praise God]! We will see this uprising continuing in all Muslim countries and soon we will see the banner of Allah everywhere!”

The forums are full of news of the exploits of jihadist fighters who have joined “Islamic battalions” in Libya under names such as the Thunderbolt Battalion and the Islamic Army of Benghazi, and so-called exclusive pictures of fighters purporting to be mujahidin on the front lines, accompanied by messages urging new recruits to join them. They provide directions on how best to travel to Libya, along with this incentive: “The market of paradise has opened and the hoor al ayn [virgins promised to martyrs] are waiting.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/libya-ripe-for-jihads-rallying-cries/story-e6frg6z6-1226044640098


What this article forgot to mention is that these Islamists will be getting US weapons and training free of charge. Hurray!  ::)

funny...the British said this about us during the revolutionary war....look where we are today


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 26, 2011, 07:08:51 AM
Are you comparing Al Queda and MB to GW and TJ? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 07:09:42 AM
i agree they have nothing.

BUT IMO, their only purpose is to draw out kadaffi's army, witht he sole purpose of carpet bombing their asses from unmanned planes once they're visible, as they move in to finish the rebels.

It's actually a depiction of obama as more evil than 33 would say.. using rebels as panws to justifiably kill kadaffi's forces so the EU will have stronger position for oil prices.

i can't think the generals - who are running the war as we all know - are hapless here.  I think thye wanna see a shitload of dead libyans, PERIOD.   And so far, taht's what thye're getting.


okay you're really going overboard and you are beginning to sound worse than the nut cases on here...Obama is not that calculating to where he would just allow rebels to be slaughtered to draw Gaddhafi's army out into the open..this is their fight..not ours..we are helping the best way we can right now


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 07:12:42 AM
Of course you can't produce a single article or any evidence whatsoever that this is Obama's game plan.

This is you trying to make Obama look smart and like he's a master of foreign policy. Protip: It isn't working. He is the biggest foreign policy failure this country has seen since Jimmeh "I've never met a Communist or Islamist thug I didn't love" Carter.


no president is a master of foreign policy...Presidents react to events in the world.....people say that Obama was caught off-guard by the revolutions and up risings in the Arab world and I believe this....Just as Ronald Reagan and Bush senior were the most surprised mofos in the world when the Berlin wall fell and the soviet union and eastern Europe collapsed without a shot being fired


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 26, 2011, 08:13:32 AM
I believe we tried that in a place called Vietnam, how'd that turn out?

For who?

For thousands of poor drafted teenagers, vietnam was a failure.
For people owning stock in companies which profit from war, vietnam must have rocked.

Now... which one of these aforementioned groups had the decision making power during nam?  ;)



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 08:21:06 AM
For who?

For thousands of poor drafted teenagers, vietnam was a failure.
For people owning stock in companies which profit from war, vietnam must have rocked.

Now... which one of these aforementioned groups had the decision making power during nam?  ;)



Dude stay on topic, I'm not going on some tangent of stupidity simply because you don't want to answer the question.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on April 26, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
funny...the British said this about us during the revolutionary war....look where we are today


Way to compare apples to wrenches dude.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 09:56:05 AM
Are you comparing Al Queda and MB to GW and TJ? 

of course not..don't be silly..but the guys who fought the revolutionary war, the minutemen, were a bunch or rag tag fighters as well with no experience...but look what they accomplished


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 09:58:07 AM
of course not..don't be silly..but the guys who fought the revolutionary war, the minutemen, were a bunch or rag tag fighters as well with no experience...but look what they accomplished

England was also 3000 miles away with the only mode of transport being sailing ships.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 09:58:33 AM

Way to compare apples to wrenches dude.  ::)

and how is it apples to wrenches..because you say so?..both are fighting for their freedom from a dictatorial government...what they decide to do with that freedom once they get it is anybody's guess


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 10:00:10 AM
England was also 3000 miles away with the only mode of transport being sailing ships.

so??...England conquered many lands with those very same ships and being many thousands of miles away...what the minutemen accomplished against the British empire was amazing


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 02:03:44 PM
and how is it apples to wrenches..because you say so?..both are fighting for their freedom from a dictatorial government...what they decide to do with that freedom once they get it is anybody's guess

Just stop. It reached the point of embarrassment long ago. You, and 240 for that matter, are both coming off as pathetically uninformed and stupid at this point. It's almost nauseating watching you two dipshits try to spin this for Obama.

Give it a rest


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 02:05:52 PM
Just stop. It reached the point of embarrassment long ago. You, and 240 for that matter, are both coming off as pathetically uninformed and stupid at this point. It's almost nauseating watching you two dipshits try to spin this for Obama.

Give it a rest

I hope you were looking in the mirror while typing that.....your utter stupidity is amazing....and you are becoming really boring with the same shit over and over...you never deviate...which proves my point that you are mentally ill and have no critical thinking skills


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 02:08:24 PM
I hope you were looking in the mirror while typing that.....your utter stupidity is amazing....and you are becoming really boring with the same shit over and over...you never deviate...which proves my point that you are mentally ill and have no critical thinking skills

Sick burn, you stupid fuck.  ::)

You are a joke and why you insist on posting in these threads is beyond me. You're a true glutton for punishment and easily the most uninformed, unintelligent and pathetically incompetent dickhead posting in this thread.

But pray tell, what critical thinking skills do you have? Let's remember that you're the guy who said you support the president no matter what, not me. You = sheep and a stupid one, at that. ;)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 02:14:22 PM
Sick burn, you stupid fuck.  ::)

You are a joke and why you insist on posting in these threads is beyond me. You're a true glutton for punishment and easily the most uninformed, unintelligent and pathetically incompetent dickhead posting in this thread.

But pray tell, what critical thinking skills do you have? Let's remember that you're the guy who said you support the president no matter what, not me. You = sheep and a stupid one, at that. ;)


again...critical thinking means being able to see both sides of an issue and to be able to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence which contradicts your own opinion...I have seen no indication here that you have that capability...you just continue to spew the same nonsense over and over....I know you are uneducated and don't have two masters degrees like I am going to have...but Jesus man.....you're embarrassing to watch....but you are a funny mofo though...your ignorance gives me tons of laughter every day hence why I shall keep returning to see what other nonsense you will post for my entertainment


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 03:11:00 PM
again...critical thinking means being able to see both sides of an issue and to be able to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence which contradicts your own opinion...I have seen no indication here that you have that capability...you just continue to spew the same nonsense over and over....I know you are uneducated and don't have two masters degrees like I am going to have...but Jesus man.....you're embarrassing to watch....but you are a funny mofo though...your ignorance gives me tons of laughter every day hence why I shall keep returning to see what other nonsense you will post for my entertainment

Why would I change my opinion when you've posted nothing remotely close to "overwhelming evidence" and you instead, much like 240, rely on conjecture, hearsay and unsubstantiated, opinionated fallacies?

You realize that you just returned the same insult I used on you for two or three posts in a row now? Your posts keep reminding me of the end of "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle", if you've ever seen that.

You're welcome to keep coming back to these threads. You've become a laughing stock on par with Samson123 and Blacken.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 26, 2011, 03:19:58 PM
hey, i call it like i see it.  IMO, the goal of our govt is dead bad guys.  period.   and we're getting that once a side wins, bad guys stop dying.  obama turned on shock n awe for 1 week, then let th bad guys all crawl back out. now he's doing it again, killing them with predators.  another 2 weeks of silence, all the while those al-Q rebels being used as bait.

dont get me wrong, i'm not attributing any of this brilliant strategy to obama, his bosses rather.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
hey, i call it like i see it.  IMO, the goal of our govt is dead bad guys.  period.   and we're getting that once a side wins, bad guys stop dying.  obama turned on shock n awe for 1 week, then let th bad guys all crawl back out. now he's doing it again, killing them with predators.  another 2 weeks of silence, all the while those al-Q rebels being used as bait.

dont get me wrong, i'm not attributing any of this brilliant strategy to obama, his bosses rather.

I'll ask again seeing as you've yet to provide a single modicum of evidence to support this "brilliant" strategy; can you substantiate this conspiracy theory of yours?  ::)

I'm hoping you're kind enough to swallow for Obama. No one likes a woman that lets spunk spill out of her mouth and onto the sheets.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 26, 2011, 03:23:16 PM
I'll ask again seeing as you've yet to provide a single modicum of evidence to support this "brilliant" strategy; can you substantiate this conspiracy theory of yours?  ::)

proof's in the pudding, champ.  USA could have won this thing for either side at any point in the last 6 weeks.

we didn't.

we just let each side win 40 to 60%, then we kill evey kadaffi man we see.

it's not obama - he's a tool/cheerleader.  its his bosses.    but if they have two options - end kadaffi in 1 week - or end him in 3 months after killing a shitload of people in his army and al-Q bitches in the rebel ranks.... which do you think they coose?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 03:49:48 PM
proof's in the pudding, champ.  USA could have won this thing for either side at any point in the last 6 weeks.

we didn't.

we just let each side win 40 to 60%, then we kill evey kadaffi man we see.

it's not obama - he's a tool/cheerleader.  its his bosses.    but if they have two options - end kadaffi in 1 week - or end him in 3 months after killing a shitload of people in his army and al-Q bitches in the rebel ranks.... which do you think they coose?

Yeah OK how long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan again? I'm sure this is making a huge impact on AQ ::) Give me a fucking break you think Qaddafi is just sitting in one spot just waiting for us to bomb him?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 03:52:30 PM
proof's in the pudding, champ.  USA could have won this thing for either side at any point in the last 6 weeks.

we didn't.

we just let each side win 40 to 60%, then we kill evey kadaffi man we see.

it's not obama - he's a tool/cheerleader.  its his bosses.    but if they have two options - end kadaffi in 1 week - or end him in 3 months after killing a shitload of people in his army and al-Q bitches in the rebel ranks.... which do you think they coose?

Funny, countless military experts whose little pinkies know more about combat than gun-toting trailer park trash like yourself do have said that the war is not winnable without boots on the ground. And so far they're 100% right, Mr. "Gadhafi will be gone in days".  

You don't know shit and you're incapable of providing a single article to back up this stupid fucking claim of yours.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 26, 2011, 04:21:02 PM
an article?  so when some NYT d-bag talks about it, you'll buy into it?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 04:26:24 PM
an article?  so when some NYT d-bag talks about it, you'll buy into it?

Your grasping at straws now, face it, the whole operation is a cluster fuck. The rebels aren't going to win because they are incompetent at best, and killing Gadhafi ain't so easy. So how long do we keep at it? When all is said and done we will have another ME country that the US will have to foot the bill to rebuild.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Your grasping at straws now, face it, the whole operation is a cluster fuck. The rebels aren't going to win because they are incompetent at best, and killing Gadhafi ain't so easy. So how long do we keep at it? When all is said and done we will have another ME country that the US will have to foot the bill to rebuild.

The funniest part of this whole thing is that you barely even hear about this WAR in the MSM. When Bush invades a Muslim country = impeach and try for war crimes and when Obama does it = nary a peep from the hypocrites on the left.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 26, 2011, 04:42:20 PM
The funniest part of this whole thing is that you barely even hear about this WAR in the MSM. When Bush invades a Muslim country = impeach and try for war crimes and when Obama does it = nary a peep from the hypocrites on the left.

It's because of the narrative floated out there of protecting civilians, but then ignore the shit going on is Syria. Kinda shoots that argument all to hell doesn't it. If Obama is the most brilliant POTUS we have ever had, why the fuck does everybody and their brother have to make excuses and cover for him? Oh thats right, we are all to stupid to understand the nuances of his decision making ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 04:44:59 PM
It's because of the narrative floated out there of protecting civilians, but then ignore the shit going on is Syria. Kinda shoots that argument all to hell doesn't it. If Obama is the most brilliant POTUS we have ever had, why the fuck does everybody and their brother have to make excuses and cover for him? Oh thats right, we are all to stupid to understand the nuances of his decision making ::)

Rest assured, Syria is going to be punished. For example, it was confirmed today that they're all but guaranteed a spot on the UN Human Rights council when the vote happens in a few months as there's no one to run against them. I'm going to start a thread with the article in a hot minute.

Talk about punishment! They'll only be dictating human rights for the world now. Let the USA/Israel bashing that is the sole purpose of the HRC commence again!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 26, 2011, 04:52:52 PM
Did you guys see my article on saudi arabia and obama? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 26, 2011, 04:54:34 PM
Did you guys see my article on saudi arabia and obama? 

I did. Remember Batchelor talking about that 2 months ago?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 26, 2011, 08:06:08 PM
I'll ask again seeing as you've yet to provide a single modicum of evidence to support this "brilliant" strategy; can you substantiate this conspiracy theory of yours?  ::)

I'm hoping you're kind enough to swallow for Obama. No one likes a woman that lets spunk spill out of her mouth and onto the sheets.

I know....you do this to me all the time and I hate it :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 27, 2011, 10:08:49 AM
Gadhafi's Five-Front War
Townhall.com ^ | April 27, 2011 | Austin Bay




For almost seven weeks, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's loyalists and mercenary soldiers have besieged the city of Misrata. Rebel fighters and Misrata's citizenry have suffered brutal assault after assault, but with the aid of NATO and coalition air power, they have denied Gadhafi's regime a key military and political goal: complete control of western Libya's coastal cities and towns.

Reports began to circulate on April 25 that Gadhafi's forces, after a bloody fight in a key neighborhood, had retreated to the outskirts of Misrata. The city, however, remains surrounded.

Gadhafi hasn't quit the battle, and the truth is, he can't afford to quit. Located about 130 miles east of Tripoli on the road to Sirte, Misrata is an island of rebel resistance lying deep within territory Gadhafi's regime must secure if it is to survive politically.

That's because Gadhafi is now fighting a war to retain control of western Libya, also known as Tripolitania. Libyans understand the importance of Misrata. Agence France-Presse quoted Col. Ahmed Omar Bani, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel Transitional National Council, as saying: "Misrata is the key to Tripoli. If he (Gadhafi) lets go of Misrata, he will let go of Tripoli. He is not crazy enough to do that."

For a little over two millennia, the classical Roman provincial designations of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica have lingered as popular names for Libya's western and eastern regions. Numerous commentators have suggested that Libya's civil war will stalemate and end with a 21st century resurrection of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. Gadhafi would retain a rump state in the west, and the rebels would make Benghazi the capital of a New Cyrenaica.

However, the revolt against Gadhafi pits oppressed outsiders against privileged regime insiders. Misrata demonstrates that the war isn't a matter of east-west geography and a neat two-way division. So does continued resistance in the Nafusa Mountains south and west of Gadhafi's stronghold of Tripoli.

The Nafusa range is a desert escarpment and a predominantly ethnic Berber region. With a few exceptions, for four decades the Berbers have received short economic and cultural shrift from Gadhafi.

Early on, Gadhafi understood the Berbers presented a geographic threat and ethnic challenge. Regime forces began attacking the Berbers in late February. In mid-April, Berber rebels seized the Libya-Tunisia border crossing between Wazin, Libya, and Dehiba, Tunisia. This opened a supply line to Tunisia. NATO aircraft are now providing air support to the Berbers. Gadhafi's attempts to secure his southern desert flank, by bribes, harassment and outright attack, have been stymied.

In March, Gadhafi suppressed uprisings in the western cities of Zuwara and Zawiya (near the coast, between Tripoli and the Tunisian border). However, opposition simmers in the region.

Stalemate? Possibly, but go back to the map -- Gadhafi faces war on four fronts. To the east, the Cyrenaica front. To the south, the Berbers. Misrata, though surrounded, hasn't cracked. The western front (Zuwara) may be quiet, but the area requires a garrison that Gadhafi might otherwise use elsewhere.

The dictator also faces a fifth front -- what might be called a 21st century fifth column, to use the Spanish Civil War term. The London Times quoted British Defense Secretary Liam Fox as saying: "All parts of command and control are legitimate targets so long as they are attacking civilians." On April 25, an air attack hit Gadhafi's headquarters. The coalition targeted a building, but in a dictatorship, the tyrant exercises supreme control.

The coalition will soon be operating Predators. The drones represent a tiny increase in strike and reconnaissance capability. As political and psychological warfare, however, they add punch.

Last week, Gadhafi was tooling around Tripoli in a convertible and shaking his fist. Now he must cast a wary eye to the sky.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 27, 2011, 11:53:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGO16q1omsg


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 27, 2011, 03:17:11 PM
British Defense Secretary Says Ground Troops in Libya a Possibility

(Telegraph) — Britain “may have to look at” deploying ground troops in the Libya campaign in order to establish safe havens for civilians, Liam Fox has said.

Fears of a humanitarian crisis have grown as food imports into Libya’s rebel-held east have been hit while the National Transitional Council struggles to establish lines of credit and foreign traders fear they will not be paid.

Dr Fox, the defence secretary, was asked if soldiers would be needed for humanitarian purposes or to protect safe havens in Libya or its borders and if this would require a new United Nations mandate.

In response to the question by Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP MP, Dr Fox accepted that it was “something we may have to look at”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8478432/Libya-Liam-Fox-under-pressure-over-deploying-troops-to-Libya.html



In other news, NATO just killed 12 Libyan rebels in a bombing. Hahahaha!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 27, 2011, 03:22:31 PM
Was just a matter of time, the humanitarian crisis cited yet again.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 27, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
Was just a matter of time, the humanitarian crisis cited yet again.

Yup.

Bomb Gadhafi's compound = killing communications so his troops can't rally for a "massacre".
Put troops on the ground to win the war kinetic action = again prevent a massacre.

What's next?  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 27, 2011, 04:10:47 PM
Yup.

Bomb Gadhafi's compound = killing communications so his troops can't rally for a "massacre".
Put troops on the ground to win the war kinetic action = again prevent a massacre.

What's next?  ::)

I guess the civilians in Libya are more important than those in Syria or Darfur, or maybe they just didn't pitch their tent on land with oil under it.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 27, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
I guess the civilians in Libya are more important than those in Syria or Darfur, or maybe they just didn't pitch their tent on land with oil under it.

More civilians have died in Syria this week alone than have died in Libya since the beginning of this civil war. Funny, though. The best the pussy of a God-King can muster is some talk about sanctions.

As for Darfur, remember that genocide was a foreign Arab Muslim-perpetrated massacre of hundreds of thousands of native black Sudanese and, given that Muslims get a free pass to kill at will, it's not surprising it went ignored.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 27, 2011, 04:17:20 PM
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden: Gaddafi Was Actually a Good Partner Against al-Qaeda

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland (AFP) — The former chief of the CIA on Tuesday praised Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi’s past cooperation and said his downfall could complicate US interests in the short term.

Retired general Michael Hayden, who led the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009 under president George W. Bush, said that restive Syria also helped US intelligence but only in selective areas.

Speaking at a conference of the Marine Corps University, Hayden said the CIA had worked well with Kadhafi and Mussa Kussa, the foreign minister who defected last month as Libyan forces moved against rebels.

“Whatever you think of Kadhafi and Mussa Kussa . . . they were good and they were good counter-terrorism partners,” Hayden told the conference near Washington.

Hayden said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was “pretty good” at fighting Sunni Muslim militants but supported Shiite radicals. Assad belongs to the Alawite sect, a Shiite offshoot despised by Sunni extremists such as Al-Qaeda.

“In both cases, you have real near-term turbulence that could — that will — make the closer fight in the immediate time-frame much more difficult,” Hayden said.

Kadhafi, a longtime international pariah due to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other attacks blamed on Libyan spies, started to reconcile with the United States in 2003 and found common interests in fighting Al-Qaeda.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hI5s6mw6nLWcIu9QkvMaylslcz9g?docId=CNG.17e3806625fad53ce9d38b16c2d5c8a2.d41



So we went from working with a reformed terrorist who was turning over Al Qaeda to arming, training, funding and fighting alongside them. The logic that only the God-King understands strikes again!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 27, 2011, 04:19:32 PM
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden: Gaddafi Was Actually a Good Partner Against al-Qaeda

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland (AFP) — The former chief of the CIA on Tuesday praised Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi’s past cooperation and said his downfall could complicate US interests in the short term.

Retired general Michael Hayden, who led the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009 under president George W. Bush, said that restive Syria also helped US intelligence but only in selective areas.

Speaking at a conference of the Marine Corps University, Hayden said the CIA had worked well with Kadhafi and Mussa Kussa, the foreign minister who defected last month as Libyan forces moved against rebels.

“Whatever you think of Kadhafi and Mussa Kussa . . . they were good and they were good counter-terrorism partners,” Hayden told the conference near Washington.

Hayden said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was “pretty good” at fighting Sunni Muslim militants but supported Shiite radicals. Assad belongs to the Alawite sect, a Shiite offshoot despised by Sunni extremists such as Al-Qaeda.

“In both cases, you have real near-term turbulence that could — that will — make the closer fight in the immediate time-frame much more difficult,” Hayden said.

Kadhafi, a longtime international pariah due to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other attacks blamed on Libyan spies, started to reconcile with the United States in 2003 and found common interests in fighting Al-Qaeda.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hI5s6mw6nLWcIu9QkvMaylslcz9g?docId=CNG.17e3806625fad53ce9d38b16c2d5c8a2.d41



So we went from working with a reformed terrorist who was turning over Al Qaeda to arming, training, funding and fighting alongside them. The logic that only the God-King understands strikes again!  ::)

It would seem most of the ME dictators would be against AQ since they want to over throw all of them


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on April 27, 2011, 08:21:46 PM
So we went from working with a reformed terrorist who was turning over Al Qaeda to arming, training, funding and fighting alongside them. The logic that only the God-King understands strikes again!  ::)

Mccain loves the rebels.  They are his heroes.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 27, 2011, 09:04:20 PM
More civilians have died in Syria this week alone than have died in Libya since the beginning of this civil war. Funny, though. The best the pussy of a God-King can muster is some talk about sanctions.

As for Darfur, remember that genocide was a foreign Arab Muslim-perpetrated massacre of hundreds of thousands of native black Sudanese and, given that Muslims get a free pass to kill at will, it's not surprising it went ignored.  ::)


you know..underneath all the stupid BS you do have some points...but it gets lost in the anti-Obama rhetoric


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 29, 2011, 11:58:48 AM
Libya: pro-Gaddafi forces cross into Tunisia
The Telegraph ^ | 4/29/2011 | Unattributed




Pro-Gaddafi forces fired shells into the town of Dehiba, damaging buildings and injuring at least one resident, and a group of them drove into the town in a truck, local people and a Reuters photographer in the town said.

The Libyan government troops were pursuing anti-Gaddafi rebels from the restive Western Mountains region of Libya who fled into Tunisia in the past few days after Gaddafi forces overran the border post the rebels had earlier seized.

"There were lots of clashes in the town this morning. Lots of gunshots. The Tunisian military clashed with Gaddafi's forces ... Some of Gaddafi's people were killed," said Reuters photographer Zoubeir Souissi from the town.

"There are a lot of Gaddafi's people who were injured. They are in the hospital in Dehiba," he said.

Two residents also told Reuters that shells had fallen on the town from pro-Gaddafi positions across the border in Libya.


(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2011, 12:01:44 PM
Going well for the Rebels ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 29, 2011, 02:40:38 PM
Going well for the Rebels ::)

didn't go too well at first for the minutemen in the revolutionary war either.....yet we  were able to win eventually


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 29, 2011, 03:12:49 PM
didn't go too well at first for the minutemen in the revolutionary war either.....yet we  were able to win eventually

You really take the piss for being the most uninformed douche bag on this board. Go ahead and keep comparing these Libyan rebels to the people who fought in the revolutionary war. You're just embarrassing yourself...not that this is new to you given that you're fast approaching Samson/Blacken laughing stock territory.

You truly are pathetically embarrassing. Give it a rest.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 29, 2011, 07:53:33 PM
It's because of the narrative floated out there of protecting civilians, but then ignore the shit going on is Syria. Kinda shoots that argument all to hell doesn't it. If Obama is the most brilliant POTUS we have ever had, why the fuck does everybody and their brother have to make excuses and cover for him? Oh thats right, we are all to stupid to understand the nuances of his decision making ::)

YES BASICALLY


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 29, 2011, 07:56:58 PM
Lmfao.   Bama is the dumbest hack ever to hold office and you think said stupidity is 15th dimensional chess.   Ha ha ha ha. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 29, 2011, 07:57:42 PM
More civilians have died in Syria this week alone than have died in Libya since the beginning of this civil war. Funny, though. The best the pussy of a God-King can muster is some talk about sanctions.

As for Darfur, remember that genocide was a foreign Arab Muslim-perpetrated massacre of hundreds of thousands of native black Sudanese and, given that Muslims get a free pass to kill at will, it's not surprising it went ignored.  ::)

you know..instead of just bashing Obama why don't you say EXACTLY what you want him to do?.....you guys don't do that because then you would actually have to leave the peanut gallery and take a stand..and if Obama does what you say then you lose the ability to criticize him

so okay genius...answer me EXACTLY what Obama should do.....don't talk about anything else until you answer my question..what exactly should Obama do in terms of Syria, Darfur, etc?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 29, 2011, 08:04:10 PM
You really take the piss for being the most uninformed douche bag on this board. Go ahead and keep comparing these Libyan rebels to the people who fought in the revolutionary war. You're just embarrassing yourself...not that this is new to you given that you're fast approaching Samson/Blacken laughing stock territory.

You truly are pathetically embarrassing. Give it a rest.

first off dickface if you had any common sense and understood the nuance of what I was saying you would know that I wasn't comparing the the two groups in terms of ideals or ideology....just simply in fighting tactics and war-winning capability....just using the analogy that revolutionary groups who appeared to be out-manned and out-gunned in history have won out over much larger forces....

of course my discussion was obviously too much for you to handle, dickface, so you've made yourself look ignorant again...my apologies for continually making you look like an ass.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2011, 08:20:42 AM
'Mission creep' is bad sign in Libya's civil war
Athens Banner-Herald ^ | Saturday, April 30, 2011 | Timothy Rutten




In the think-tank argot popular in foreign policy circles, "mission creep" is an idiom for one of the garden-variety mistakes most people were warned against at their mother's knee. Think "don't throw good money after bad" and you've pretty well got the essence of the thing.Predictably, though, mission creep is what's occurring in Libya. Each halting step the United States and its NATO allies take deeper into a morass none of them really understands makes it more likely that this ill-considered intervention will end in precisely the event it set out to prevent: Moammar Gadhafi's massacre of his political opponents.

That's because even the most enthusiastic of the strongman's foreign antagonists, France, is unwilling to commit troops to dislodge him from power.

Without foreign troops it seems less and less likely that an untrained, sketchily equipped, ill-organized and divided insurgency will overthrow Gadhafi, who has all the resolve of a man with nowhere else to go and the support of his tribal allies and the considerable number of Libyans who somehow have benefited from his misrule.


(Excerpt) Read more at onlineathens.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 30, 2011, 08:34:57 AM
'Mission creep' is bad sign in Libya's civil war
Athens Banner-Herald ^ | Saturday, April 30, 2011 | Timothy Rutten




In the think-tank argot popular in foreign policy circles, "mission creep" is an idiom for one of the garden-variety mistakes most people were warned against at their mother's knee. Think "don't throw good money after bad" and you've pretty well got the essence of the thing.Predictably, though, mission creep is what's occurring in Libya. Each halting step the United States and its NATO allies take deeper into a morass none of them really understands makes it more likely that this ill-considered intervention will end in precisely the event it set out to prevent: Moammar Gadhafi's massacre of his political opponents.

That's because even the most enthusiastic of the strongman's foreign antagonists, France, is unwilling to commit troops to dislodge him from power.

Without foreign troops it seems less and less likely that an untrained, sketchily equipped, ill-organized and divided insurgency will overthrow Gadhafi, who has all the resolve of a man with nowhere else to go and the support of his tribal allies and the considerable number of Libyans who somehow have benefited from his misrule.


(Excerpt) Read more at onlineathens.com ...


I agree with this..you finally post something that makes sense


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2011, 08:37:59 AM
No - you just dont want to see the reality of the communist looter obama for what he is.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 30, 2011, 08:38:38 AM
No - you just dont want to see the reality of the communist looter obama for what he is.  

Boom.

'Mission creep' is bad sign in Libya's civil war
Athens Banner-Herald ^ | Saturday, April 30, 2011 | Timothy Rutten




In the think-tank argot popular in foreign policy circles, "mission creep" is an idiom for one of the garden-variety mistakes most people were warned against at their mother's knee. Think "don't throw good money after bad" and you've pretty well got the essence of the thing.Predictably, though, mission creep is what's occurring in Libya. Each halting step the United States and its NATO allies take deeper into a morass none of them really understands makes it more likely that this ill-considered intervention will end in precisely the event it set out to prevent: Moammar Gadhafi's massacre of his political opponents.

That's because even the most enthusiastic of the strongman's foreign antagonists, France, is unwilling to commit troops to dislodge him from power.

Without foreign troops it seems less and less likely that an untrained, sketchily equipped, ill-organized and divided insurgency will overthrow Gadhafi, who has all the resolve of a man with nowhere else to go and the support of his tribal allies and the considerable number of Libyans who somehow have benefited from his misrule.


(Excerpt) Read more at onlineathens.com ...


This war is a disaster. What have we accomplished since getting involved? Besides arming, training, funding and fighting alongside the same people who have killed Americans and whose entire life revolves around destroying this country, of course. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 30, 2011, 08:39:48 AM
Boom.

wheres the boom in that statement???....more like a "plop"


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on April 30, 2011, 08:40:42 AM
wheres the boom in that statement???....more like a "plop"

"HAHAHAHA, 333'S ASS-KICKING OF ANDREISDAMAN CONTINUES"


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on April 30, 2011, 08:47:07 AM
"HAHAHAHA, 333'S ASS-KICKING OF ANDREISDAMAN CONTINUES"

saying that Obama is a "communist looter" is kicking my ass????..you guys are really desperate which shows I've actually gotten to you :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2011, 08:48:29 AM
saying that Obama is a "communist looter" is kicking my ass????..you guys are really desperate which shows I've actually gotten to you :D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2011, 03:16:43 PM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike
Reuters Africa ^ | Saturday, April 30, 2011 | Lin Noueihed
Posted on April 30, 2011 6:19:22 PM EDT by SunkenCiv

Shattered glass litters the carpet at the Libyan Down's Syndrome Society, and dust covers pictures of grinning children that adorn the hallway, thrown into darkness by a NATO strike early on Saturday.

It was unclear what the target of the strike was, though Libyan officials said it was Muammar Gaddafi himself, who was giving a live television address at the time...

The missile completely destroyed an adjoining office in the compound that houses the government's commission for children.

The force of the blast blew in windows and doors in the parent-funded school for children with Down's Syndrome and officials said it damaged an orphanage on the floor above.

"I felt sad really. I kept thinking, what are we going to do with these children?" said Ismail Seddigh, who set up the school 17 years ago after his own daughter was born with Down's...

There were no children at the school when the missiles hit early on Saturday morning, since Friday begins the weekend in Libya. Children had been due to come in on Saturday morning.

(Excerpt) Read more at af.reuters.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 01, 2011, 11:24:00 AM
Qaddafi Escapes NATO Missile Strike That Kills His Son, Grandchildren
Fox News ^ | May 01, 2011 | Associated Press
Posted on May 1, 2011 11:54:13 AM EDT by cougar_mccxxi

TRIPOLI, Libya -- Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi escaped a NATO missile strike in Tripoli that killed one of his sons and three young grandchildren, a government spokesman said early Sunday. Hours later, Qaddafi's forces shelled a besieged rebel port in a sign that the airstrike had not forced a change in regime tactics.

Though the deaths could not be independently verified, NATO's attack on a Qaddafi family compound in a residential area of Tripoli late Saturday signaled escalating pressure on the Libyan leader who has tried to crush an armed rebellion that erupted in mid-February.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Neurotoxin on May 02, 2011, 06:17:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGGP20137SA



George 'TRI-G' Bush's illegal War


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on May 05, 2011, 03:20:09 AM
The fleecing has stepped into overdrive. Libyan rebels now asking for $3 billion to set up their government.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: whork25 on May 05, 2011, 04:06:42 AM
The fleecing has stepped into overdrive. Libyan rebels now asking for $3 billion to set up their government.

Tell them we are broke


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 09, 2011, 06:48:17 AM
NATO leader: 'Gadhafi's time is over'
By the CNN Wire StaffMay 9, 2011 10:35 a.m. EDT
Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi stands outside a tent erected at his Bab al-Aziziya residence in Tripoli on April 10,

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/08/libya.war/index.html




(CNN) -- NATO's leader confidently proclaimed on Sunday that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's days are numbered, but he couldn't foresee how long the alliance's grinding mission to protect besieged civilians will last.

"The game is over for Gadhafi," NATO's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told CNN's "State of the Union." "He should realize sooner rather than later that there's no future for him or his regime."

NATO's Anders Fogh Rasmussen on the endgame in Libya

Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister, believes Gadhafi will be ushered out of power amid the "wind of change" sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, and the dramatic military strides in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"This week we have seen a major blow to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's evil vision of conflict as a means to create conflict between the Muslim world and the rest of the world. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban is under pressure everywhere, so basically I am very optimistic," he said, making reference to the killing of bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs on Monday in Pakistan.

The alliance has been carrying out a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the protection of civilians from the Gadhafi regime by any means necessary, and since March 31, its planes have been pounding targets across the country.



Misrata: Horror movie comes to life

She fled Gadhafi, wants to see family RELATED TOPICS
Libya
Moammar Gadhafi
Misrata
NATO
According to NATO's latest daily operational update, NATO planes struck several targets on Sunday, including an ammunition storage site in the Zintan region, tanks in Misrata and Ajdabiya, military vehicles in al-Brega, and headquarters compound buildings and ammunition and vehicle storage facilities in Hun, south of Sirte.

There have been widespread assumptions among experts that the conflict between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces will continue to be a stalemate for some time. Rasmussen was asked when the NATO operation would be completed but all he could say was "it needs an end of the mission."

"We have defined three very clear military objectives," he said. "Firstly, a complete end to all attacks against civilians. Secondly, a free and unhindered and immediate access for humanitarian assistance. And thirdly, a withdrawal of Gadhafi military forces and paramilitary forces to their bases and barracks. When these objectives are fulfilled, our mission is accomplished."

He said "it's hard to imagine" that the "outrageous and systematic attacks" by pro-Gadhafi forces against Libyans will halt as along as Gadhafi stays in power.

He said there needs to be a political and not a military solution with a "peaceful transition to democracy" as Gadhafi leaves power.

But the conflict rages on. The Tunisian state news-agency reported on Sunday that 50 people were injured when government forces and rebels clashed near the Tunisian-Libyan border on Saturday.

Gadhafi's forces on Saturday bombed key fuel depots in the besieged city of Misrata, destroying six containers and causing a massive fire, a rebel spokesman said.

Meanwhile, in the de facto rebel capital, Benghazi, the Libyan opposition said Saturday that Italy has agreed to arm the rebels.

Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, deputy chairman of the National Transitional Council, said opposition representatives have flown to Italy to finish the deal.

The Italian Foreign Ministry categorically denied it will send weapons to Libya. A press office spokesman said Italy will only go as far as sending non-lethal weapons such as satellite and radar systems to aid the rebels.

The rebels, intent on winning on the ground without foreign troops, have been asking for arms supplies as the war rages in cities like Misrata.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on May 09, 2011, 03:13:20 PM
There's a war in Libya? Must have missed it due to the blatant MSM attempts to bury any talk about this for fear that their God-King will be criticized for being a warmongering twat.

Hi, Syria. 800 dead so far and rising!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on May 09, 2011, 04:35:55 PM
There's a war in Libya? Must have missed it due to the blatant MSM attempts to bury any talk about this for fear that their God-King will be criticized for being a warmongering twat.

Hi, Syria. 800 dead so far and rising!  ::)

again I asked you a long time ago what should be done about Syria...I can still hear hear the crickets


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 08:01:14 AM
Libya: An Ugly War Getting Uglier
Frontpagemagazine ^ | 5-13-11 | Stephen Brown




Libyan rebels scored their most important victory in the nearly three-month old uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, when they captured the airport in Misrata on Wednesday, virtually taking control of the city. Gaddafi’s forces had been besieging Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city, for two months and had driven the rebels into an area around the harbour, where they were subjected to constant rocket and artillery fire. Two Western journalists, one American and one British, were among the people killed by the heavy barrage during this time.

“The airport and its approaches were the last remaining pieces of significant terrain in the city to be controlled by the Qaddafi soldiers,” the New York Times reported.

NATO immediately followed up the rebel success with air strikes on Thursday on a compound in Tripoli. Three civilians were allegedly killed in the attack, but after a government-guided tour of the area, reporters suspect civilians are being used as human shields in the compound to protect a possible underground military complex.

The rebels’ capture of Misrata is important for several reasons. It is the only city the anti-Gaddafi forces hold in Western Libya and is regarded as the stepping stone to capturing Tripoli, Gaddafi’s stronghold. Located 130 miles east of Tripoli, a Misrata in rebel hands represents a knife at Gaddafi’s throat. Which is why the Libyan leader fought so bitterly to take it from rebel hands and why strenuous efforts may still be made in counterattacks to recover the lost ground there. But even if Gaddafi does succeed in containing the insurgents within Misrata, their victory will certainly add to the accumulating military strain on his forces.

Moreover, the rebels’ taking of Misrata is a huge public relations coup. In the eyes of the world, the battle for Misrata had become an important symbol of the anti-Gaddafi cause. Gaddafi is now seen to have failed to attain a goal he badly wanted and needed, and so close to home at that, while the rebels prevailed. Ultimately, if the rebels overthrow Gaddaffi, the Misrata victory may become for the Libyan conflict what Stalingrad was for the Soviets: a psychological and military turning point.

On the rebel side, probably their greatest advantage in breaking Misrata’s isolation consists in the fact they can now start to bring in food and medical supplies through the sea port for the city’s 500,000 desperate, suffering people. Only tugboats and a few Red Cross ships had risked making the trip to Misrata during the siege due to the danger.

Supplying soldiers and civilian populations, or logistics as military strategists term it, decides many wars, and some analysts believe this is what will determine the Libyan conflict’s outcome. On Wednesday, the rebels scored an important triumph in this area by opening an avenue to feed the people under their control in an important city.

Gaddafi, on the other hand, is facing a bleak future logistics-wise. Although Gaddafi’s army is believed to have enough weapons and ordnance for a year’s fighting, his ability to feed Tripoli’s one million people for that period of time is problematic. NATO has imposed a tight air and sea blockade around his stronghold. An extended period of suffering could see a renewal of the anti-Gaddafi protests the Libyan capital experienced earlier in the conflict that loyal security forces seem to have quelled. But when people become very hungry and unhappy, like in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, force will not prevent them from taking to the streets again.

While NATO countries are blocking Gaddafi’s supplies, they are helping rebel logistics significantly with shipments of food and aid to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold. The first American ship to deliver “non-lethal aid” to the rebels arrived in Benghazi this week. Among the items delivered were 10,000 ready-to-eat meals. Ships from other NATO countries have already made trips to Benghazi, delivering food and aid, while Qatar has been sending the rebels weapons, the only country reported to have done so. The rebels have asked NATO for better weapons but the alliance has been slow to respond. The United Nations has imposed an arms embargo on Libya, but some governments interpret it as applying only to Gaddafi.

NATO is also assisting the rebels logistically by unfreezing the $60 billion Gaddafi and his family had in assets and bank accounts in their countries. This money will be turned over to the rebels to help run the territory they control. One estimate is that, in the short term, the insurgent government in Benghazi will need $3 billion alone to meet their commitments. Oil-rich Qatar has already helped out with a $600 million donation. To further assist rebel finances, NATO is also allowing the sale of oil from the territories under their control in Western Libya.

Gaddafi is expected to hire lawyers to fight the confiscation of his assets, about $34 billion of which are located in the United States. This is not surprising, since there is an oil embargo on the areas he controls, and he has no other source of revenue. As time goes on, Gaddafi will need money more than the rebels. It is a matter of survival. He has to pay for his shadow army of 20,000 mercenaries, and mercenaries are expensive. They will only keep fighting as long as they get paid. It is not known how much cash Gaddafi had at the start of the conflict, but his financial resources are not inexhaustible. And wars cost money – lots of money. Secretary of State Robert Gates said on Thursday the Libyan conflict has cost the United Stares $750 million so far, and America is not a major combatant.

But Gaddafi is a ruthless survivor and knows how to make an ugly war even uglier. He is proving this by hitting back at NATO with perhaps the one weapon he knows the European Union countries fear: an unrestricted flood of illegal immigrants. By allowing a massive flood of refugees to leave from Libya to Europe, primarily to Italy and Malta, Gaddafi is not only taking revenge against NATO for interfering in Libya’s civil war, but showing them what will happen if he is removed from power.

Under Gaddafi, Libya had been the guardian of Europe’s gate against an uncontrolled influx of illegal sub-Saharan African immigrants. Libya had struck an agreement with Italy in 2008 to return such would-be migrants, which reduced the numbers reaching Italian shores significantly. Now, officials in Tripoli are reported to be deliberately sending boatloads of these refugees, who had been living both legally and illegally in Libya before the conflict and numbered about 1.5 million, to Italy and Malta. And since these voyages of desperation are often undertaken in overloaded, unseaworthy boats, they sometimes end tragically. Several ships have sunk before they could reach a safe shore, costing hundreds of lives.

Gaddafi knows he has to win this war or he and his family will die, which is incentive enough for him to fight to the bitter end. His defeat at Misrata represents not just a failure in this life or death struggle but also a sign of weakness, which is deadly for a dictator in his part of the world.

And as time goes on, the rebels will get stronger and stronger as NATO’s training efforts take effect, and their logistics and strategic situation improves, to which the Misrata victory contributed. The fall of Misrata into rebel hands may also have finally dispelled for NATO the notion of sending ground troops into Libya to assist the rebels, which the alliance almost did when it appeared Gaddafi’s army was going to seize the city. Even without NATO troops, though, the insurgents will defeat Gaddafi, but only after more months of hard struggle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/13/libya-an-ugly-war-getting-uglier/


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 09:17:35 AM
At Deadline, U.S. Seeks to Continue War in Libya ( WarPowers Act Ends on 20th)
http://www.nytimes.com ^ | May 12 2011 | By CHARLIE SAVAGE and THOM SHANKER






Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must terminate operations after 60 days The Libya campaign will reach that mark on May 20.

-The administration apparently has no intention of pulling out of the Libya campaign

-One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

-Another idea is for the United States to order a complete — but temporary — halt to all of its efforts in the Libya mission. Some lawyers make the case that, after a complete pause, the United States could rejoin the mission with a new 60-day clock.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 09:27:16 AM
Obama administration invites Libyan opposition to White House for meetings Friday
washingtonpost.com ^ | May 12 2011 | Associated Press




WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up its engagement with forces fighting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, inviting opposition leaders to meet with U.S. officials at the White House Friday, while stopping short of recognizing their council as Libya’s legitimate government.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 11:55:26 AM
WH: Libya mission to go on until Gadhafi stops
AP – A woman protects from the sun as a boy poses with a plastic weapon during Friday Prayer in Benghazi, …
By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Julie Pace, Associated Press – 1 hr 38 mins ago




WASHINGTON – The White House says the U.S. and NATO will continue military operations in Libya as long as Moammar Gadhafi keeps attacking his own people.

President Barack Obama met with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (AHN'-derz FOHG RAHS'-moo-sihn) at the White House on Friday.

The White House says in a statement that the two agreed that the NATO-led mission has saved countless lives.

Representatives from the anti-Gadhafi Libyan Transitional Council are in Washington to meet with U.S. officials at the White House later Friday. Obama is not scheduled to join them.

The U.S. has been increasing its financial support for the opposition, but is not recognizing the Council as Libya's legitimate government.



________________________ ________________________ _____


Days not weeks.    ::)  ::)  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on May 13, 2011, 03:25:15 PM
WH: Libya mission to go on until Gadhafi stops
AP – A woman protects from the sun as a boy poses with a plastic weapon during Friday Prayer in Benghazi, …
By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Julie Pace, Associated Press – 1 hr 38 mins ago




WASHINGTON – The White House says the U.S. and NATO will continue military operations in Libya as long as Moammar Gadhafi keeps attacking his own people.

President Barack Obama met with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (AHN'-derz FOHG RAHS'-moo-sihn) at the White House on Friday.

The White House says in a statement that the two agreed that the NATO-led mission has saved countless lives.

Representatives from the anti-Gadhafi Libyan Transitional Council are in Washington to meet with U.S. officials at the White House later Friday. Obama is not scheduled to join them.

The U.S. has been increasing its financial support for the opposition, but is not recognizing the Council as Libya's legitimate government.



________________________ ________________________ _____


Days not weeks.    ::)  ::)  ::)

There's a war going on in Libya? The MSM must not have time to fit in any talk about it in between swallowing loads of President "Gutsy Call".  ::)

1000+ killed in Syria in the last month. Still no documented evidence of massacres in Libya. PROGRESS!  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 03:33:34 PM
Check out my abbas thread. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 04:18:28 PM
NYT: White House searching for “plausible theory” by which Libya war won’t soon be illegal
Hot Air ^ | 5/13/11 | Allahpundit
Posted on May 13, 2011 8:21:15 PM EDT by Nachum

In an alternate reality where anyone still cares about Libya or the War Powers Act, this article is the biggest story in America today. As it is, the president concocts a half-assed legal dodge to avoid even minimal accountability in matters of war and somehow it’s not even on the board at Memeorandum.

Luckily, Congress doesn’t care either or else we might have had quite a tiff on our hands here.

The administration apparently has no intention of pulling out of the Libya campaign, and Mr. Steinberg said that Mr. Obama was committed “to act consistently with the War Powers Resolution.” So the Obama legal team is now trying to come up with a plausible theory for why continued participation by the United States does not violate the law.

A variety of Pentagon and military officials said the issue was in the hands of lawyers, not commanders. Several officials described a few of the ideas under consideration…

By ending all [drone] strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another idea is for the United States to order a complete — but temporary — halt to all of its efforts in the Libya mission. Some lawyers make the case that, after a complete pause, the United States could rejoin the mission with a new 60-day clock.

I like the phrasing about how they’re trying to “come up” with a legal theory to justify a war a few days before the 60-day grace period ends, as if they’re some sort of high school study group brainstorming over pizza the night before a big class presentation is due. And the presentation doesn’t even have to be good — merely “plausible,” sort of in the C-/D+ range. Congress is famously an easy grader.

Hopefully the White House will have some fun with it, just to see how much crap Senate eminences like Kerry — who now admits the war is a stalemate — and McCain are willing to eat. The boldfaced logic in the blockquote is wonderfully surreal, for instance: If you take it seriously, that the president can wage war indefinitely without congressional authorization merely by declaring a formal halt and then a formal re-start to operations every 60 days, then the War Powers Act is a colossal joke. You wouldn’t have to go to court to try to nullify it on separation-of-powers grounds; it’d be effectively defunct, killed by its own weakness as Congress refused to support it. First the economy, then Bin Laden, now the WPA: Say what you will about The One, but when he wants something dead, he knows how to get the job done.

As for how long the mission will go on, apparently that’s entirely up to Qaddafi. He issued a statement today claiming that NATO bombs will never find him, but rumors are swirling that that’s not true.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2011, 07:41:27 PM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Libyan rebels sold Hizballah and Hamas chemical shells
http://www.debka.com/article/20811/ ^
Posted on April 23, 2011 12:17:28 AM EDT by TigerClaws

Senior Libyan rebel “officers” sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi’s military facilities in and around Benghazi, DEBKAfile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources report.

Word of the capture touched off a scramble in Tehran and among the terrorist groups it sponsors to get hold of their first unconventional weapons.

According to our sources, the rebels offloaded at least 2,000 artillery shells carrying mustard gas and 1,200 nerve gas shells for cash payment amounting to several million dollars.

US and Israeli intelligence agencies have tracked the WMD consignments from eastern Libya as far as Sudan in convoys secured by Iranian agents and Hizballah and Hamas guards. They are not believed to have reached their destinations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, apparently waiting for an opportunity to get their deadly freights through without the US or Israel attacking and destroying them.

(Excerpt) Read more at debka.com ...

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 18, 2011, 07:39:25 PM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Senate letter seeks Obama compliance with War Powers Act
washington examiner ^ | 5/18/11 | Conn Carroll
Posted on May 18, 2011 8:02:05 PM EDT by Nachum

Six Republican Senators will sign a letter this afternoon asking President Obama if he intends to comply with War Powers Act regarding Libya. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Tenn., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, all signed the letter which identifies this Friday, May 20th, as “the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution.” In testimony before the Senate last week, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg promised Obama would comply with the War Powers Act on Libya.

The letter claims Obama “introduced the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Libya … without regard to, or compliance with, the requirement of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution.” Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act says that the United States Armed Forces can only be introduced into hostilities pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. None of those three requirements have been met so far. The senators also note that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has reported that operations in Libya have cost the Pentagon at least $750 million so far.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 19, 2011, 02:19:26 PM
Republican senators press president on War Powers deadline
 By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/republican-senators-press-president-on-war-powers-deadline/?iref=allsearch




Washington (CNN) – As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.

The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The GOP senators said they believe the president already violated part of the War Powers Act – which says the president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

But the president did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60 days.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Tuesday that he is "talking to the administration" about what exactly Congress and the White House might do to abide by that looming 60-day deadline Friday with regard to Libya.

"We want to make sure we're not stretching anything inappropriate. So we're looking at some language," Kerry said as he entered a weekly policy lunch in the Capitol with Democratic senators. "We're really looking at it very seriously to keep everyone on the same page."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a vocal advocate of U.S. military support for the Libyan rebels, has been in talks for weeks with Democrats and Republicans about a resolution backing the Libya mission – but perhaps something short of voting on a War Powers resolution. He said Tuesday that congressional leadership has not shown an "inclination" to vote on something.

McCain said he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional and therefore he doesn't believe the president needs congressional authorization to continue the mission.

"I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, either Republican or Democrat," McCain said.

But Sen. Rand Paul told CNN congress should not let any president get away with launching military action without congressional approval, and that he and his colleagues may go to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling on whether the president is in violation of the law.

"There is a law. It's on the books, and in plain reading of the War Powers Act, he appears to be in violation of the War Powers Act," said Paul.

Paul said they will also attempt to push "legislative remedies" on the Senate floor, but acknowledges that may be hard to accomplish since Democrats control the schedule.

"To me it's the most important debate we'll ever have up here. If we're going to send someone, your son or my son to war, its important that it be done properly, and its important that if there are constitutional restraints, we obey them," said Paul.

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 20, 2011, 07:54:11 PM
Now this tyrant is violating the war powers act.   

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 20, 2011, 08:01:39 PM
Lawmakers Demand Explanation From White House as Libya War Deadline Arrives
Fox News ^ | 5/20/2011 | fox news
Posted on May 20, 2011 6:15:58 PM EDT by tobyhill

The deadline for President Obama to secure congressional authorization for the military operation in Libya went whizzing by Friday without such a vote, fueling lawmakers' concerns that the administration was flouting the law, but the White House insisted it was on solid legal footing.

The concerns stem from provisions in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The resolution, passed in defiance of then-President Nixon at the tail end of the Vietnam War, states that presidents must seek congressional approval to keep U.S. forces in hostilities for more than two months. Friday was the 60th day of U.S. involvement in the U.N.-backed military intervention in Libya.

Asked about the requirements in the law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney cited the president's ongoing consultation with Congress and claimed his actions "have been and are consistent with the War Powers Resolution." He said the White House would continue to consult with Congress, adding that the administration would "welcome an expression of support" from lawmakers.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2011, 08:08:11 PM
Now this tyrant is violating the war powers act.   

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html



Ridiculous logic.  "Non-kinetic support"?   ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2011, 02:50:43 PM
Barack Obama's state visit to Britain hit by splits over Libya
The Telegraph ^ | 5/21/2011 | Patrick Hennessy, Philip Sherwell, Andrew Gilligan





Military and diplomatic sources in both Britain and the US are privately critical over the other side’s role in the action which has hit a damaging “stalemate” and left Colonel Muammar Gadaffi clinging to power.  

Britain wants the US to take more of a defined role in the campaign, with UK military chiefs protesting that the effectiveness of bombing raids is being lessened by the absence of American leadership.

US diplomatic sources, meanwhile, have criticised Britain as a “skittish” and unpredictable ally which frequently issues a “red card” -- effectively vetoing a target, causing confusion and greatly hampering proper planning.

Mr Obama emphasised the differences between the two allies yesterday, describing the action against Libya as “limited” in a letter to US lawmakers.

Mr Cameron is expected to pass on the frustration over the lack of leadership from the US when he holds talks with Mr Obama at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, although Downing Street sources last night denied there were tensions.

Both London and Washington are keen to proclaim a new era for the “special relationship” between the two nations on the eve of the trip, which will see the president and his wife, Michelle, spend two nights in Britain, with the programme including a state banquet at Buckingham Palace and a speech by Mr Obama to both houses of parliament.

It will also feature a barbecue in No 10’s rose garden on Wednesday, hosted jointly by Samantha Cameron and Mrs Obama, which both leaders are expected to take time out of their schedules to attend.

Guests, who include servicemen and women and their partners, will be served British burgers and sausages, with some food sourced in Mr Cameron’s Oxfordshire constituency of Witney.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state,


(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on May 21, 2011, 03:44:44 PM
All of this and at the end of the day, when he Gaddafi stays in power... We'll have another former "ally" who will again support terrorism... Way to go Obama... fucking moron.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on May 21, 2011, 04:42:37 PM
Why don't we just fullscale invade Lybia, oust Kadafi and put in a puppet of our choosing?

We've done it before, might as well do it again.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2011, 04:44:32 PM
Gadaffi was a puppet for awhile.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Deicide on May 21, 2011, 04:46:08 PM
Gadaffi was a puppet for awhile.

Yes but we need a new one now.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2011, 05:10:48 PM
Ha ha ha - how about kermit or oscar? 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: tu_holmes on May 21, 2011, 05:14:21 PM
Ha ha ha - how about kermit or oscar? 

Cookie monster. :)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 23, 2011, 04:00:15 AM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Excited by power, Obama ignores legal restraints
Washington Examiner ^ | 5/22/11 | Timothy Carney
Posted on May 23, 2011 6:14:03 AM EDT by markomalley

President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law.

Now that 60 days have passed since the United States joined the hostilities, Obama's war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power.

Presidential arrogation of power is nothing new. President George W. Bush's lawyer John Yoo declared in a post-9/11 memo that no congressional "statute .... can place any limits on the president's determinations" about how to fight terrorism, proclaiming such decisions "are for the president alone to make."

But Barack Obama ran against this imperial mind-set. On war powers, he said, "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."

More broadly, he declared, "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers."

Now that he's president, Obama apparently believes the inverse: Stubborn rulers should not be subject to the whims of the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 23, 2011, 06:47:39 PM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Senate Democrats, GOP agree on Libya resolution
AP ^ | 5-23-11 | DONNA CASSATA
Posted on May 23, 2011 10:11:56 PM EDT by tcrlaf

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the legal deadline for President Barack Obama to seek full-blown congressional authorization.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the non-binding resolution along with five other Republicans and Democrats.

(SNIP)

Also backing the resolution were Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...









Typical assholes riding to Obama rescue.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 24, 2011, 06:04:41 AM
US Official: Obama Invites Libyan Rebels To DC
AP via Yahoo News ^ | 24 May 2011 | AP


________________________ _______________--

BENGHAZI, Libya – The top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East says President Barack Obama has invited the Libyan rebels' National Transitional Council to open an office in Washington D.C., but he stopped short of formal recognition.

Tuesday's statement by Jeffrey Feltman comes hours after NATO launched its most intense bombardment yet against Moammar Gadhafi's stronghold of Tripoli.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 24, 2011, 08:33:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkuc8L8uf8


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 27, 2011, 09:34:14 AM
Libyan 'Freedom Fighters' Murderous Jihad Against Non-Arab Blacks
american thinker ^ | 5/27/11 | Andrew G. Bostom




An Eritrean priest in Rome, Don Mussje Zerai, who oversees the Habeshia cooperation and development agency, is reporting that murderous atrocities are being committed against non-Arab black Libyans in territories under the control of the US and NATO supported "Libyan freedom fighters."

Some 800 Africans were massacred in Misrata alone, as allegedly documented in a number of videos of the Habeshia agency website that depict "cruel episodes and fury on lifeless bodies," which are "manifestation of deep held hate."

The clergyman decried the ongoing indifference (memo to the delusional Senator John McCain) to this carnage despite previous reports. Don Zerai further warned that "hundreds of thousands of Darfur Sudanese," also trapped in Libya, risk "being crushed by this intolerance that is spreading in the territories occupied by the rebels." He implored the international community to acknowledge what is happening so that "black Libyans are not massacred", because he believes firmly that the perpetrators of these murders and violent acts are the anti-Gaddafi rebels. Don Zerai concluded with this plaintive question, and appeal:

What guarantees is Europe asking from the new lords of Libya freed from Gaddafi? We need at all costs to avoid another genocide in the African continent.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 29, 2011, 06:25:50 PM
BF - check this out


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-reportedly-aiding-syrian-crackdown/2011/05/27/AGUJe0CH_story.html



And the obama fanatics on this board cheer this asshole on as reformer?   ha ha h ah ha!!!


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 30, 2011, 05:13:40 PM
In Violation Of UN Resolution, Western "Boots" Are Now On The Libyan Ground
 zero hedge ^ | 5/30/11 | Tyler Durden




In a TV slip caught by Al Jazeera, yet another Zero Hedge prediction has been confirmed: namely that it was only a matter of time before NATO "boots on the ground" would promptly replace the CIA's "sandals on the ground" in a fully Western-backed land invastion of Libya. Since it is too early to predict the nationality of the armed invaders, we will assume they are British as Al Jazeera speculates, because otherwise Congress is about to find itself in an unprecedented scandal for completely ignoring its duty to impose the War Powers Act, which in turn would mean that the President now has a unilateral right to enforce the invasion of any country he so chooses. We will leave the bitter implications of what this could mean, as America celebrates, and remembers the lives of so many who died for this once great country, to others.


(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 02, 2011, 08:26:13 AM
June 2, 2011
Libya: A War Fit for a King
‹‹Previous Page |1 | 2 |
By Steve Chapman




Remember back in your high school civics class, when you were taught about the constitutional division of authority in matters of war? When you learned that the president has all the powers of an emperor, and Congress has all the powers of a potted plant?

Neither do I. But the people occupying high office in Washington went to a different school. They have done their best to prove that when it comes to using military force, neither the law nor the Constitution means a thing.

More than two months ago, President Obama abruptly took the nation to war against Libya, a country that had not attacked us or threatened us. His ostensible purpose was to protect Libyan civilians from the government of Moammar Gadhafi, which is at war with insurgents.

Obama acted after getting authorization from the United Nations, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, rather than Congress, which is. Specifically, the framers stipulated that Congress has the power to "declare war," giving it the chief responsibility except when the president needed to act quickly to repel an attack.

But in the ensuing centuries, presidents of both parties have often trampled over their original limits, and Congress has usually let them. This has not gone over well with all lawmakers -- like the senator who said in 2007 that the president has no right to go to war on his own, barring an actual or potential attack.

_His name was Barack Obama. But President Obama has thoroughly repudiated the naive and simplistic notions voiced by Sen. Obama. In some ways, he has also been even more aggressive than his predecessors in doing whatever he pleases.

A rare attempt by Congress to reassert its authority came in 1973, when it passed a law called the War Powers Resolution. It places mild restrictions on the president, requiring him to report to Congress when he puts American forces "into hostilities." If Congress doesn't give approval of the operation within 60 days, the law says, he has to bring it to a swift conclusion.

But the 60th day came and went last month without the slightest recognition by Obama. Meanwhile, the administration claims it is abiding by the law while declining to bother explaining how on earth this can be.

One possible excuse is that we are not at war in Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates insists the term "war" is inappropriate for what he calls a "limited kinetic action." He can call it a Hawaiian luau if he wants, but the fact remains that the U.S. is apparently still flying missions over Libya and hitting military targets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The War Powers Resolution does not contain a giant, honking exception for such activities. In fact, the authors seemed to have Libya in mind when they said the rules apply anytime American forces venture "into the territory, airspace, or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat."

It doesn't matter if our pilots are up there firing missiles or looking for topless beaches: If they are in combat aircraft over another country, the law applies.

But Obama apparently used his copy of the War Powers Resolution to housebreak the first dog. Rather than insult our intelligence with hair-splitting arguments about why the law exempts this undertaking, he has chosen to simply pay it no mind.

Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith told The New York Times that "this appears to be the first time that any president has violated the War Powers Resolution's requirement either to terminate the use of armed forces within 60 days after the initiation of hostilities or get Congress' support."

The administration has brushed off questions about its compliance with the law. But The Times says officials have said Obama "may order forces into limited military engagements on his own if he decides it is in the national interest, and that the NATO-led campaign in Libya is such a conflict."

Really? Can someone direct me to the provision of the Constitution that blesses "limited military engagements" authorized by the White House in conjunction with NATO? Or the section in the War Powers Resolution that says, "Invalid in cases when the president claims a national interest"?

The Constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But when Obama executed this law, he did it with a firing squad.

 

‹‹Previous Page |1 | 2 |


schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/02/libya_a_war_fit_for_a_king_110053-full.html at June 02, 2011 - 09:24:52 AM PDT


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 05, 2011, 01:33:58 PM
Russia: NATO 'one step' from land war in Libya
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_re_us/libya_russia





SINGAPORE – Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov says NATO is "one step" from sending troops into Libya in a bid to help rebels remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Ivanov said Sunday at an Asian security conference in Singapore that Russia didn't know that a United Nations resolution it supported to protect civilians and shut down Libyan air space would lead to a land operation.

British and French attack helicopters struck for the first time inside Libya on Saturday. NATO had previously relied on attack jets generally flying above 15,000 feet (4,500 meters).

NATO airstrikes have kept the outgunned rebels from being overrun, but the rebels have been unable to mount an effective offensive against Gadhafi's better-equipped forces.




















________________________ ____________


Obama - "Days not weeks."   



   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 05, 2011, 02:15:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpq4cfF8O3E


No, this is not a war.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 05, 2011, 02:21:16 PM
More than three-fourths of House members believe Libya operation is questionable, illegal or unwise

The U.S. House considered two measures yesterday relating to the war in Libya. The first, which carried on a bipartisan vote, demanded that President Obama justify and explain his actions in Libya, and stated as a finding of fact that

The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.

This successful resolution also demands that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General "transmit to the House of Representatives" copies of any documents, records, or correspondence referencing the administration's need to communicate with Congress or the War Powers Resolution.

Obama has maintained all along that he consulted with Congress sufficiently to justify going to war. The Congress, including a significant number of House liberals, is calling him a liar with this first resolution, and demanding documentary evidence that will prove it.

The second measure, which failed on a bipartisan vote, demanded that Obama cease military action in Libya. The minority who supported it presumably consider the operation unwise, in addition to its potential illegality.

Only 86 members of Congress voted for both measures. This means that 330 members of Congress voted for at least one -- more than three-quarters of the U.S. House.

The White House reacted with a statement that "these resolutions are unnecessary and unhelpful." They are only unhelpful in that they might prevent Obama from governing in a way that ignores the clear letter and spirit of the law and the Constitution.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29feed&utm_content=feed&utm_term=feed#ixzz1ORW9uLMg




Months Days, not weeks.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 01:49:48 PM
Source: Associated Press


WASHINGTON — The White House brushed off congressional demands for a detailed report outlining U.S. objectives in Libya, a move likely to stoke further anger on Capitol Hill over President Barack Obama’s decision not to seek lawmakers’ consent for the military operation.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that administration officials were already answering questions about Libya in briefings on Capitol Hill. A House resolution calling on Obama to provide more detailed answers was “unhelpful,” Carney added, suggesting that the administration has no plans to formally respond within the 14-day window outlined in the measure.

However, the spokesman said the White House could continue to hold regular consultations with Congress on Libya.

“To the extent that within those consultations there are questions asked that we can answer, we will answer,” Carney said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-cong...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 02:34:37 PM
Libyan rebels' advances near Misrata wiped out by Nato orders
Guardian (UK) ^ | Monday 6 June 2011 20.47 BST | Chris Stephen in Dafniya




With exaggerated patience, Swehli explained the situation facing the Misrata rebels: "We are ready to attack, we can go forward. The Gaddafi forces are weak. They had seven strong points in front of us and now all of them are smashed.

"Of course we are grateful for Nato's help, but Nato insist we are behind the red lines. We are ready to kill the soldiers. Of course Nato helps us, but we are ready to attack, we want to go forward."

Swehli and his soldiers are in a double bind: Nato bombers will strike if they fall back, but the civilians of Misrata are once again in danger. But if they advance, they appear to be on their own.

On Monday the ground they so expensively captured had to be given back on Nato instructions.

Nato officials deny there are red lines. They say their main concern is targeting, and making sure civilians are not in the areas they plan to strike.

Lines of communication are long. Rebels at the frontline report to Nato's liaison in Benghazi about targets they have seen and what the rebels themselves plan to do. Benghazi then reports to Nato.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi remains in control of much of the country, and some in his forces remain defiant.


(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 06, 2011, 05:14:11 PM
LIBYA: ALGERIAN ARMY CLASHES WITH INFILTRATING REBELS

(ANSAmed) - ROME, JUNE 6 - For the first time, the Algerian Army fought Libyan rebels who - taking advantage of a football match between Algerian and Morocco on Saturday - infiltrated into Algerian territory in order to try to take control of the Libya-Algeria border checkpoint in the area of Debdab in the extreme southeast of the country. Clashes between the Algerian Army and Libyan rebels lasted until yesterday morning, according to Algerian daily Al Nahar Al Jadeed. The Libyan rebels, underlined the daily, tried to surprise the pro-Gaddafi forces that control the border checkpoint on the Libyan side by launching an attack from Algerian territory. The attempt by the Libyan rebels, explained the daily, failed thanks to the fast reaction of the Algerian Army, which forced the Libyan rebels to retreat after violent clashes. (ANSAmed).

http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF22439.html


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on June 06, 2011, 05:20:03 PM
damn.... nato killing kadaffi's men.... and the rebels getting killed off too?

I know i've been saying it for months... but to me it really looks like the mission is to kill as many libyans with weapons as possible, whether they're rebels (some of which are al-Q) or they're under kadaffi.



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 06, 2011, 05:20:41 PM
damn.... nato killing kadaffi's men.... and the rebels getting killed off too?

I know i've been saying it for months... but to me it really looks like the mission is to kill as many libyans with weapons as possible, whether they're rebels (some of which are al-Q) or they're under kadaffi.



Can you substantiate that or is this another OBL moment with you? Color me surprised that you're trying to paint Obama as some master manipulator and tactician here. Really, I'm stunned by this about-face from you.  ::)

It's nothing more than incompetence of the highest order from a man that hasn't the faintest fucking idea in the world what he's doing with regards to foreign policy.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 05:27:12 PM
Yeah ok 240.  That's why obama invited the rebels to establish an official office in wash dc.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 06, 2011, 05:28:44 PM
Yeah ok 240.  That's why obama invited the rebels to establish an official office in wash dc.

This guy defends literally 100% of everything this guy does. He will not criticize anything.

But don't worry, he voted Barr.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on June 06, 2011, 05:36:14 PM
Can you substantiate that or is this another OBL moment with you?

It's nothing more than incompetence of the highest order from a man that hasn't the faintest fucking idea in the world what he's doing with regards to foreign policy.

maybe it's incompetence.  I'm not trying to analyze the motives or obama or un or anyone else, really.  I''m looking at the results...

neither side is winning.  both sides getting killed left and right.

Maybe it has to go on for 1, 2, 5 years of dead libyans with weapons before my theory could be proven, who knows.  

But I believe the US, the UN, Obama, whoever... sure does love seeing lots of libyans blown up, sure.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 05:38:54 PM
Along w the us const. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on June 06, 2011, 05:39:56 PM
damn.... nato killing kadaffi's men.... and the rebels getting killed off too?

I know i've been saying it for months... but to me it really looks like the mission is to kill as many libyans with weapons as possible, whether they're rebels (some of which are al-Q) or they're under kadaffi.





This is true.  At the DOD we're typically briefed on how many Libyan's we kill each morning.  From there we do a lot of high-fiving, some low-fiving, and then dance to "Just can't get enough" - and that's just before the 1st of our 3 morning doughnut breaks.

It's actually my job to draw little tiny guns on the people you see in the aerial photographs (for kicks I make it look like the kids are walking around with uzi's - sucka's at Strategic Air Command are totally fooled).

Well, once again you've outed our massive conspiracy....back to the drawing board. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on June 06, 2011, 06:36:05 PM
hahahahhahha!!!!!!!!!!  awesome post :)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 06, 2011, 06:37:17 PM


This is true.  At the DOD we're typically briefed on how many Libyan's we kill each morning.  From there we do a lot of high-fiving, some low-fiving, and then dance to "Just can't get enough" - and that's just before the 1st of our 3 morning doughnut breaks.

It's actually my job to draw little tiny guns on the people you see in the aerial photographs (for kicks I make it look like the kids are walking around with uzi's - sucka's at Strategic Air Command are totally fooled).

Well, once again you've outed our massive conspiracy....back to the drawing board.  

Are there holograms involved? I mean, if OBL's wife could use them then why not you guys or these rebels?

maybe it's incompetence.  I'm not trying to analyze the motives or obama or un or anyone else, really.  I''m looking at the results...

neither side is winning.  both sides getting killed left and right.

Maybe it has to go on for 1, 2, 5 years of dead libyans with weapons before my theory could be proven, who knows. 

But I believe the US, the UN, Obama, whoever... sure does love seeing lots of libyans blown up, sure.

You're such a fucking retard it's astounding. You know why no one is winning? Because, as was touched on MONTHS AGO by people who know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than you do, no one wins a war like this without boots on the ground. And I'm not talking about a handful of special operations teams that are probably having their hands tied behind their backs by your God-King.

You really do defend everything Obama does and you never stop trying to paint him as the master of everything he touches. Sorry, you're not convincing anyone, you DNC shill. He is failing miserably in Libya. I don't know why you're surprised given that failure is the name of his game.

Come on, tell us again how you're really a conservative who voted Barr. I need a good laugh.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on June 06, 2011, 06:54:12 PM
Are there holograms involved? I mean, if OBL's wife could use them then why not you guys or these rebels?





:D

My clearance isn't high enough to know.  You better check with 240 and SAMSON/JAG.  They're usually "in" on the top top secret stuff - I just handle Bilderburg shit and below.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 06, 2011, 06:55:49 PM



:D

My clearance isn't high enough to know.  You better check with 240 and SAMSON/JAG.  They're usually "in" on the top top secret stuff - I just handle Bilderburg shit and below.

Your Google-fu isn't strong enough yet, young padawan. The only solution is for you to drop everything and move into a trailer in some Florida swamp.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 06:56:19 PM



:D

My clearance isn't high enough to know.  You better check with 240 and SAMSON/JAG.  They're usually "in" on the top top secret stuff - I just handle Bilderburg shit and below.

You are on a roll. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Skip8282 on June 06, 2011, 07:03:49 PM
Your Google-fu isn't strong enough yet, young padawan. The only solution is for you to drop everything and move into a trailer in some Florida swamp.

lol


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 07:44:51 PM
Obama to pressure Merkel on Libya
Published: 6 Jun 11 08:57 CET
Share
50
 
US President Barack Obama will ask Angela Merkel for a stronger German contribution to the military intervention in war-torn Libya when the chancellor visits Washington on Monday, according to a media report.
Germany in 2011: Economic giant, political dwarf - Analysis & Opinion (31 May 11)
“I look forward to discussing with the Chancellor how we can enhance our work together to more effectively address the changes underway in the region, including in Libya,” Obama told the Monday edition of Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel.

He praised Germany’s pledge to provide indirect military support for the struggle against the Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi, who has since February been brutally suppressing an uprising that has evolved into a civil war in which thousands have been killed.

But he also said that people in Libya, Egypt and other north African countries going through political upheaval deserved the help of Germany and the US.

“We know that there are many challenges ahead in the Middle East and North Africa. These are not easy transitions and they will take time. But, as I’ve said, this is also an historic moment of opportunity.

“The demands for political and economic reform that are coming from the people of the region are legitimate and must be addressed. Violence against peaceful protesters is unacceptable and must stop.”

Traditional German allies the US, Britain and France are using missile strikes and a no-fly zone to protect civilians and help the rebels fighting Qaddafi’s forces, in a military intervention coordinated by NATO. Germany, however, refused to participate.

Obama quoted something Merkel herself had said: “Freedom does not come about of itself. It must be struggled for, and then defended anew, every day of our lives.”

This refusal, as well as Germany's abstention in the UN Security Council vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force, annoyed allies including Washington. Relations between Germany and the US are widely thought to have cooled lately. Many German commentators noted the fact that Obama skipped Germany during his recent European tour on which he visited Ireland, Britain, France and Poland.

Obama is set to present Merkel with the Washington the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States. He praised the chancellor as a “good friend” of America and “one of my closest global partners.”

“My friendship with Chancellor Merkel is based on my deep respect and admiration for her as a leader and the fact that I trust her when she makes a commitment,” he said.

“I consult with the Chancellor on every important issue on my international agenda and I very much appreciate her pragmatism and her straight talk.

“We don’t always agree on everything; no two allies do. But in our meetings and discussions, we always speak honestly and openly, as close friends should, and I believe that our approach to shared challenges is stronger because of it.”

Click here for a transcript of Obama's interview.


The Local/djw

http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20110606-35481.html




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 07, 2011, 04:51:48 AM
Obama Kills the War Powers Act. The President simply ignores the law.
National Review ^ | 06/07/2011 | Rich :Lowry


________________________ ________________________ __



Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling. In 1973, he vetoed the War Powers Act, insisting that it was unconstitutional. Congress overrode him, but almost every one of Nixon’s successors has agreed with his assessment of the resolution.

It took Pres. Barack Obama, though, to rip the War Powers Act into little pieces and sprinkle it over his Libyan intervention like the confetti in a premature victory parade.

The thrust of the War Powers Act is clear enough: Sixty days after reporting the start of a military intervention, the president must secure congressional authorization or a declaration of war, or remove our forces. Presidents have typically acted “consistent with,” but not “pursuant to,” the law’s provisions — basically, humoring Congress while never conceding the law’s constitutional legitimacy.

President Obama is dispensing with all pretense. He’s simply ignoring the law. This is the kind of highhandedness that Dick Cheney was always accused of, although the Bush administration was old-fashioned enough to get prior congressional approval of its wars.  

Obama launched the Libya War on his say-so, and doesn’t even want to bother to explain to Congress why the War Powers Act doesn’t apply to a conflict begun some 80 days ago. On Libya, the Obama administration is making a gigantic rude gesture to Congress and all the liberal professors and national-security experts who have made such a fetish of the War Powers Act through the years.

Before tangling with Moammar Qaddafi, Obama counted himself among their number. As a senator, he maintained, “The president does not 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.”

President Obama joins a long list of presidents going back to Thomas Jefferson whose views of the limits of executive power didn’t survive their first contact with the presidency.

President Obama isn’t doing his reputation for consistency or the legal theories of his supporters any favors, but he is paying a backhanded compliment to the Constitution. The War Powers Act is an excrescence on the American constitutional order that deserves to be the dead letter that President Obama is making it. The president’s inherent powers as commander in chief do not depend on affirmative acts of Congress.

What Congress can do is wield its own powers — most decisively, the appropriation of funds — to limit or end a military action. Of course, Congress usually refuses to do that, since it involves an action for which it could be held politically accountable. Predictably, the grand confrontation between the legislative and executive branches over Libya has been an instance of the cowardly fighting the disingenuous.

The Obama administration implausibly pretends that the president’s posture hasn’t changed on the War Powers Act. A spokesman argues that its briefings of members of Congress constitute compliance. But the resolution doesn’t call for collegial chats after 60 days. The administration’s other possible defenses — that Libya isn’t really a war, that it’s a piddling war, that we are “leading from behind” — don’t help, either. The act doesn’t make exceptions for small, euphemistic wars waged under NATO auspices by reluctant presidents.

If this were the Bush administration, Nancy Pelosi would be agitating for impeachment. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman has written in despair that “Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors.” At this rate, he notes, “history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.”

History comes full circle. In the aftermath of Vietnam and the midst of Watergate, liberal Democrats passed the War Powers Act as part of a broad assault on presidential powers. The act reached the end of the line with a liberal Democrat in the White House, who wanted to avail himself of the full sweep of his powers. No doubt, Nixon wouldn’t just relish the result, but appreciate the irony.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review




Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 07, 2011, 06:32:32 PM
Gaddafi defiant as Nato strikes intensify
By Michael Peel in Abu Dhabi and Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: June 7 2011 19:43 | Last updated: June 7 2011 19:43
Nato air strikes pounded Tripoli with the heaviest bombardment of the alliance’s 11-week Libya campaign, as Colonel Muammer Gaddafi vowed to fight to the death against intensifying efforts to oust him.

The aircraft launched more than two dozen strikes throughout the day on Tuesday on the area around the leader’s compound and other targets as leading world powers upped the diplomatic pressure for him to stand down.

The escalating Nato action – which critics say has gone beyond the military alliance’s UN mandate to protect civilians – comes amid other signs of a weakening in Col Gaddafi’s resistance to an almost three-month rebel uprising against his 41-year rule.

Nato aircraft had launched at least 27 strikes by mid-afternoon, reporters in Tripoli said, with smoke visible above Col Gaddafi’s sprawling and heavily fortified Bab al-Aziziya compound. State television said some bombs had hit the compound, while a government spokesman said others were targeted at a barracks nearby hit by previous air strikes.

The fresh strikes came as President Barack Obama gave an upbeat assessment of progress in the military action against Col Gaddafi’s forces, and called on Germany to join other US allies in preparing for life after the regime.

“It is just a matter of time before [Col] Gaddafi goes,” the US leader told reporters at a joint news conference with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

“There is going to be a lot of work to do when Gaddafi does step down in terms of getting the Libyan people back on their feet – economic, political work that’s going to have to be done,” he said. “My expectation is going to be that there will be full and robust German support.”

Libya has been a point of contention between the US and Germany following Berlin’s abstention in the UN Security Council vote authorising the use of force, although Ms Merkel noted that Germany supported the Nato mission – not least by freeing up other alliance members’ assets by doing more in Afghanistan.

Col Gaddafi responded to the fresh strikes with a rare and defiant audio broadcast on state television in which he warned: “We will not kneel. We will not surrender.”

As well as the bombings, the Libyan leader has been hit by defections from his regime, and shortages of fuel and other goods as economic sanctions bite, as well as rebel gains in the strategically important Nafusa mountains south of Tripoli.

The US and other anti-Gaddafi forces are part of an international contact group on Libya that is due to meet on Thursday in the United Arab Emirates.

The increasingly heavy Nato bombing is causing growing divisions between those countries – such as the US, Britain and France – that argue they are helping hasten the end of a regime responsible for mass killings of civilians, and critics who say the strategy is destroying any prospect of a negotiated transition of power.

The International Crisis Group, a respected Brussels-based conflict-resolution body, argues that the insistence by rebels and western powers that Col Gaddafi leave and face trial for war crimes will almost certainly ensure “that he will stay in Libya to the bitter end and go down fighting”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Print articleEmail articleOrder reprints


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on June 07, 2011, 07:58:06 PM
Can you substantiate that or is this another OBL moment with you? Color me surprised that you're trying to paint Obama as some master manipulator and tactician here. Really, I'm stunned by this about-face from you.  ::)

It's nothing more than incompetence of the highest order from a man that hasn't the faintest fucking idea in the world what he's doing with regards to foreign policy.

the dickface knows all


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on June 07, 2011, 07:58:45 PM
This guy defends literally 100% of everything this guy does. He will not criticize anything.

But don't worry, he voted Barr.  ::)


and you criticize 100% of what he does..how are you any different?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 08, 2011, 03:20:25 AM
the dickface knows all

Obama's laying the groundwork for how the next century of wars will be fought! Incompetence, embarrassment and months without any identifiable progress will set the standard for 21st century warfare! He's a GENIUS! I'm in awe of your and 240's ability to see through the bullshit and recognize that Obama is simply the greatest military mind to ever grace this planet.

Shame on guys like MacArthur for not realizing that you can win wars by claiming it will takes "day, not weeks" and then arming terrorists while bombing radio towers and other useless shit, all while managing to accidentally bomb the same terrorists you want to help in the process! Talk about impressive!

I'm in so much awe of Obama's tactical prowess that it was hard for me to even type this post.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 08, 2011, 03:25:43 AM
Please don't ever put macarthur and obama in the same thread BF.   

Let the great general rest in peace for gods sake. Lol. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 08, 2011, 03:36:34 AM
Please don't ever put macarthur and obama in the same thread BF.   

Let the great general rest in peace for gods sake. Lol. 

;D


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 08, 2011, 04:37:49 AM
Trump grilling Wiener! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjm2BntY9Q


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 08, 2011, 07:27:10 AM
Libya crisis: Pro-Gaddafi forces attack Misrata
BBC ^ | June 8 2011 | BBC





"Gaddafi forces are shelling Misrata from three sides," rebel spokesman Hassan al-Misrati told Reuters news agency from inside the town.

"He has sent thousands of troops from all sides and they are trying to enter the city."


(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on June 08, 2011, 07:52:41 AM
Obama's laying the groundwork for how the next century of wars will be fought! Incompetence, embarrassment and months without any identifiable progress will set the standard for 21st century warfare! He's a GENIUS! I'm in awe of your and 240's ability to see through the bullshit and recognize that Obama is simply the greatest military mind to ever grace this planet.

Shame on guys like MacArthur for not realizing that you can win wars by claiming it will takes "day, not weeks" and then arming terrorists while bombing radio towers and other useless shit, all while managing to accidentally bomb the same terrorists you want to help in the process! Talk about impressive!

I'm in so much awe of Obama's tactical prowess that it was hard for me to even type this post.


sigh.....you so much want to blame Obama you aren't thinking straight....Obama is not running the war..the Europeans are...we are in a mostly support role....Obama is not running tactics


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 08, 2011, 07:58:20 AM

sigh.....you so much want to blame Obama you aren't thinking straight....Obama is not running the war..the Europeans are...we are in a mostly support role....Obama is not running tactics


Obama is typhoid mary for anything he touches.   A failure of biblical measure.   


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 09, 2011, 07:45:32 AM
U.S. pledges $26 million in aid for Libyan victims (U.S. Taxpayer's Money)
cnn ^ | 6/9/2011 | cnn






U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced an additional $26 million in aid for war victims Thursday at an international coalition meeting aimed at charting the course of a post Moammar-Gadhafi Libya.

But in the North African nation, the war dragged on as Gadhafi held strong despite another round of pounding from NATO jets.

Financial assistance flowed in at the Libyan Contact Group meeting in Abu Dhabi, the third such meeting the group has held since war erupted.


(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 09, 2011, 08:28:36 AM
Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar
By Jeremy Lemer and Christine Spolar
Published: June 9 2011 00:23 | Last updated: June 9 2011 00:23
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11d5624c-920f-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OnSuD2i3




US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.

Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Gates criticises five allies over Libya - Jun-08.Plans sought for Libya post-Gaddafi - Jun-08.Gaddafi troops shell Misurata - Jun-08.Editorial Coment: Making plans for peace in Libya - Jun-08.Gaddafi defiant as Nato strikes intensify - Jun-07.In depth: Libya uprising - May-14..But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.

The pace of spending is higher than reported by the DoD comptroller’s office in late March. In a congressional hearing, Pentagon officials said the US had spent about $550m on Libya, at a rate of about $40m a month.

If spending remains at the increased rate until the end of the recently extended Nato authorisation period, the DoD could face an extra bill of about $274m to pay for a combination of air strikes, refuelling operations and intelligence-gathering missions, putting further strain on its budget.

Any extra spending will further strain the DoD’s budget, which is under pressure from cost overruns on procurement programmes and under threat from significant cuts as part of Congressional efforts to address the federal deficit.

Despite continuing to press the White House for additional funding for Libya operations, in his May comments Secretary Gates suggested that “in the case of Libya, unfortunately, we’re fundamentally having to eat that one.”

Any additional costs could also add to pressure on the US to limit its mission in Libya. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution demanding that President Obama explain the US involvement in Libya, forestalling a more radical measure seeking an end to US involvement.

Although it is working under Nato, the US is by far the largest contributor to operation Unified Protector. As of mid-May it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refuelling flights and 27 per cent of all air sorties.

The US has about 75 aircraft, including drones, involved in the operations and since the end of March has conducted about 2,600 aircraft sorties and about 600 combat sorties. In addition the US military can call on a number of naval assets in the Mediterranean.

As well as its contribution to the Nato operation, US spending on Libya includes its twelve day operation Odyssey Dawn that took place before Nato took over.

In total the US military has fired about 228 missiles as of mid-May. For comparison the US Navy plans to buy 196 or so missiles this year for about $300m or about $1.5m each, according to US budget documents.

.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 09, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
Source: The Guardian



Britain, France and the other six countries engaged in the Libya bombing campaign will struggle to keep up the intensive attacks on Colonel Gaddafi without other countries joining in, the Nato alliance has been told.

"Those who are bearing the brunt of the strike burden are increasingly pressed," said Robert Gates, the US defence secretary. "I think they'll be able to sustain it. But the question is just how much more painful it becomes, if other countries that have the capabilities don't step up."

With the Nato-commanded air strikes on Libya to be prolonged by 90 days from the end of this month, only eight of its 28 member states are involved in the campaign, which has reached a peak in tempo and intensity this week.

France and Britain are doing most of the attacks, while Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy and Canada are also heavily involved.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/libya-nato-... 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on June 09, 2011, 12:41:29 PM
wow, that guy killed americans and you glorify him like that.  sick.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: andreisdaman on June 09, 2011, 05:42:06 PM
wow, that guy killed americans and you glorify him like that.  sick.

agreed and that what makes 3333 so despicable..he has such hatred for Obama that he glorifies those who have killed Americans and who go against us....

3333 doesn't realize that he is committing treason yet he calls everyone else a communist

EPIC HYPOCRISY


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Fury on June 09, 2011, 06:11:30 PM
Days, not weeks.

An acknowledged bill (aka much higher) of $750 million announced today. Ghadafi still in power.

Days, not weeks. LOL.

How sad.


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 10, 2011, 05:13:41 AM
Norway to quit Libya operation by Aug. 1
AP via Google ^ | June 10, 2011




OSLO, Norway (AP) — Norway says it will scale down its fighter jet contribution in Libya from six to four planes and withdraw completely from the NATO-led operation by Aug. 1.


(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: 240 is Back on June 10, 2011, 05:39:39 AM
33,

are you happy that the american-killing kadaffi is "winning"?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 10, 2011, 05:43:14 AM
33,

are you happy that the american-killing kadaffi is "winning"?


No really, but it is humerous to say the least.   "Days not weeks"     

BTW - he was giving us tons of intel on al quaeada and suspended his nuke plans while GWB was potus. 

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on June 10, 2011, 06:26:51 AM
33,

are you happy that the american-killing kadaffi is "winning"?

Why would anyone be happy Kadaffi is winning? The point is this "kinetic military action" was ill conceived and horribly executed. They assumed that A) Kadaffi would be taken out in the early days of the air strikes. B) Kadaffi didn't have the stones to stick it out and would beg for asylum. Neither happened, all the tough talk and sanctions amount to a hill of beans. The rebels are inept, and even with AQ involvement ( AQ use guerrilla tactics not conventional) they are getting their ass kicked. So whats the point of all this? Keep up the airstrikes indefinitely and hope NATO gets lucky and takes Kadaffi out?


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 10, 2011, 09:50:17 AM
Gadhafi writes to Congress for cease-fire
By Bob Cusack - 06/10/11 12:52 PM ET

www.thehill.com

________________________ ________________________ ______-

 

Congress has received a letter ostensibly from Moammar Gadhafi that calls for a cease-fire and urges the U.S. to take the lead in negotiating a deal for peace in Libya. 

The June 9 letter, which The Hill obtained, is addressed to the White House and lawmakers. House and Senate leadership aides say they have received the document, but have not confirmed its authenticity. The White House declined to comment.



Gadhafi’s liaison office in Washington, D.C., has been closed.


The letter, in which Libya's dictator promises democratic reforms, appears designed to separate the U.S. from its European allies. In the letter, Gadhafi says he would welcome a fact-finding mission if Congress were to send one, and claims that he has long sought a "special relationship" with the U.S.
 
The letter comes as growing signs of disunity are emerging in Washington over the conduct and purpose of the military action against the North African regime. Last week the House rebuked the White House on Libya, and the Senate has struggled to craft a bipartisan resolution authorizing U.S. action there.

Some believe that Gadhafi is desperate to strike a deal. On Thursday, a senior NATO militiary official with operational knowledge of the Libya mission told CNN that the U.N.-passed resolution justifies the targeting of Gadhafi.


Pressed by CNN on whether Gadhafi is being targeted, the NATO source did not give a direct answer.


Gadhafi is caling for "a cease fire, the funding of humanitarian relief and assistance in fostering and furthering accommodation between the parties within Libya that are at odds." In exchange, he pledges reforms.
 
Gadhafi chastises France, which he claims led the charge on recent Security Council resolutions against Libya. He argues that France is motivated to "seize Libyan oil" while simultaneously trying to smooth relations with the U.S.
 
The letter that was provided to The Hill is addressed to the White House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Leadership aides downplayed the significance of the document, stressing they are most interested in Gadhafi's ouster or resignation.
 
The 3-page communication asserts that "hostilities in Libya are an internal affair" and that NATO's involvement is "inappropriate and illegal interference in what is essentially a Libyan civil war."
 
Gadhafi also claims that it "should be clear that Libya is unified in its opposition to extremist elements... ."
 
The Libyan leader adds that "in recent years we have fully cooperated with US and International authorities to this end."
 
Gadhafi writes that Libya is committed to "exercising power through a direct democracy which will choose the senior officials who will provide the administration of the Libyan Government and take care of its own affairs. ... Further we welcome the possibility of a fact finding committee of the US Congress to [inquire] and observe the true democratic sincerity of all Libya men and woman [sic] and the leadership of our Country, as well as investigative claims that have been made about systematic violations inside Libya during this tragic civil war."
 
Gadhafi states that Libya has been keen for years "to establish a special relationship with the United States of America based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. We were the first country to issue an arrest warrant for [Osama] Bin Laden and the first Country that stood in solidarity with the United States regarding the events of 9/11 and this horrific terrorist attack on the Twin Towers."
 
He also warns of another terrorist attack: "We have intelligence that suggest that both AQ members and weapons are being transported from Libya to Algeria Mali and the Sahara and even to Gaza; this constitutes a serious threat to the region, the world and particularly to the security of the United States."
 
The letter ends, "Peace be upon you Col / Muammar Gaddafi Commander of the Great Revolution."
 
Gadhafi sent a letter to Obama in early April calling for airstrikes to end.





—Sam Youngman, Molly K. Hooper, John Bennett, Pete Kasperowicz, Russell Berman, Daniel Strauss and Alexander Bolton contributed to this article.



________________________ ____________




ha ha ha ha- he is out flanking Obozo by the second. 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 10, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Source: The Guardian



Muammar Gaddafi has raised the stakes in the conflict with Nato, responding to air strikes by Apache helicopters with the heaviest bombardment of the besieged rebel enclave of Misrata in two months.

Rockets and mortar shells rained down on opposition positions around the ruined village of Dafniya, leaving 22 rebels dead, the highest toll since they took control of the city in mid-April.

A stream of ambulances brought the dead and wounded to the city's Hikma hospital. Bodies arrived with limbs missing, accompanied by the shouts of medics, the thud of Grad rockets and the wail of prayers from mosques. "The frontline is like hell," said Feras Mohammed, a 20-year-old medic who accompanied a badly injured soldier in an ambulance.

On the frontline, trees were set on fire by the constant stream of grads and rockets. Gaddafi's forces launched an infantry attack supported by four tanks which was repulsed by rebel fighters, who then pushed on into Gaddafi-held territory for six miles. "We attacked them and caught two tanks which we destroyed," said a fighter, Mohamed Khalid.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/10/gaddafi-for...

 


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 13, 2011, 07:15:42 AM
Just 26% Favor Continued Military Action in Libya
Monday, June 13, 2011


 
A plurality of voters now opposes further U.S. military action in Libya, and most say President Obama needs congressional approval to continue those operations.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters feel the United States should continue its military actions in Libya. Forty-two percent (42%) are opposed  and 32% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)  

But 59% agree the president should get the approval of Congress if he wants to continue U.S. military action in Libya. Twenty-one percent (21%) say congressional approval is not needed. Another 20% are not sure.

This marks a jump in support for congressional authorization from mid-March just after the president committed U.S. military forces to helping anti-government rebels in Libya. At that time, 47% said the president should have gotten congressional approval before ordering the military into action in Libya.  Thirty-four percent (34%) said the prior approval of Congress was not necessary, but 19% were undecided.

Most voters remain skeptical of how soon U.S. military involvement in Libya will end. Just 32% think it is at least somewhat likely that U.S. military operations in Libya will be over by the end of the year, with 10% who say it is Very Likely. Fifty-four percent (54%), however, think it is unlikely those operations will be done by the close of the year, including 14% who say it is Not At All Likely. Another 14% are not sure.

This is comparable to findings in late April. 

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 10-11, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. 

The House of Representatives last week passed a measure requiring the president to come back with a full report on military actions in Libya by the end of the month. A second measure with bipartisan support calling for an end to the Libyan mission was defeated.

The president insists that NATO allies like Great Britain and France are now taking leading military operations in Libya, with the United States taking a back seat since the early weeks of the campaign. U.S. voters aren’t so sure: 38% believe the military operations in Libya are being handled primarily by U.S. allies like England and France, but 32% think the United States is primarily in charge.

Fifty percent (50%) of Republicans and a plurality (46%) of voters not affiliated with either major party believe the United States should end its military action in Libya. Democrats are more narrowly divided, but 41% of those in the president’s party are undecided.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters and 68% of unaffiliateds feel the president should get the approval of Congress if he wants to continue military action in Libya. A plurality (47%) of Democrats agrees.

Most Republican and unaffiliated voters think an end to U.S. military action in Libya is unlikely by the end of the year. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.

The majority (54%) of Political Class voters, on the other hand, think U.S. military involvement in Libya is likely to be over by the end of the year.  Sixty percent (60%) of Mainstream voters say it’s unlikely.

While 48% of Political Class voters support continued military action in Libya, 49% of those in the Mainstream do not. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Mainstream voters believe the president needs congressional approval to continue operations in Libya, but the Political Class is closely divided.

Americans have expressed strong reservations about involvement in the current chaotic political situation in the Arab world from the start.  Most voters think the growing political unrest in the Arab world is putting Israel further at risk. 

At the same time, overall voter confidence in U.S. efforts in the War on Terror remain at record high levels since the killing of Osama bin Laden.  However, voters appear less optimistic about the situations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats by a 47% to 39% margin when it comes national security issues.  But just eight percent (8%) of voters nationwide rate national security issues such as the War on Terror as their top voting issue. 

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free).  Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2011/just_26_favor_continued_military_action_in_libya



Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Kazan on June 13, 2011, 07:29:18 AM
Wow what a surprise, this is just like everything else this administration does. Lots a vague platitudes with no real plan to accomplish anything. Well done Barack, well done ::)


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 13, 2011, 07:33:36 AM
Wow what a surprise, this is just like everything else this administration does. Lots a vague platitudes with no real plan to accomplish anything. Well done Barack, well done ::)

The complete meltdown on the NYT thread about obama and wall street echos that exactly.   


Only the 95%ers, latte libs, govt workers' unions, and a few other freak show groups still by anything this liar says.     


Title: Re: Obama's illegal war
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 14, 2011, 04:03:48 AM
Source: Washington Post

________________________ ________________



The House approved Monday an amendment designed as another symbolic rebuke of President Obama over the Libya campaign.
<