Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 16, 2018, 01:50:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 37   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 54052 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #350 on: March 29, 2011, 05:29:13 PM »

You are delusional.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #351 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:

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


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


WWW
« Reply #352 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #353 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?
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16673



« Reply #354 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #355 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16673



« Reply #356 on: March 29, 2011, 06:40:07 PM »

Are you joking? I'm asking that with a straight face.

sigh.................... ............... Undecided...you never learn
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #357 on: March 29, 2011, 06:41:43 PM »

sigh.................... ............... Undecided...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?
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16673



« Reply #358 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #359 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #360 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #361 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

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #362 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)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #363 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 ...


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


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #364 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #365 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #366 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #367 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.

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


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #368 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!  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #369 on: April 01, 2011, 08:26:59 AM »

President Osama, literally. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #370 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #371 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #372 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #373 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19485


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #374 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 ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 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!