Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 19, 2018, 08:58:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 37   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 52903 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #325 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
 


Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #326 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #327 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."
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #328 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.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #329 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #330 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #331 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

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #332 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #333 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #334 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...
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6456


Getbig!


« Reply #335 on: March 29, 2011, 09:05:59 AM »

What a disaster if al Qaeda takes over Lybia.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #336 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #337 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-... 
Report to moderator   Logged
Kazan
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6707


Sic vis pacem, parabellum


« Reply #338 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
Report to moderator   Logged

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #339 on: March 29, 2011, 01:50:47 PM »

Arming Afghan rebels in the 80s worked out well for us.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #340 on: March 29, 2011, 01:52:34 PM »

Arming Afghan rebels in the 80s worked out well for us.  Roll Eyes

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #341 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.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #342 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.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #343 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15960


Robot


WWW
« Reply #344 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #345 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.  Roll Eyes


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 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #346 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 Wink

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.  Roll Eyes

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".
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #347 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #348 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #349 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 37   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!