Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 66900 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #50 on: March 21, 2011, 06:59:20 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.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #51 on: March 21, 2011, 09:28:56 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 ...

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #52 on: March 21, 2011, 09:34:26 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!!!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2011, 09:38:38 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

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2011, 09:42:01 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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2011, 09:44:57 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.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2011, 10:11:18 AM »
I wish my grandma could sling an AK. 


Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2011, 10:22:58 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

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2011, 10:27:22 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.

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2011, 10:30:36 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?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2011, 10:30:56 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.    

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2011, 11:24:20 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 ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2011, 03:23:59 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.


andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2011, 03:34:02 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

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2011, 03:36:17 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

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #65 on: March 21, 2011, 03:37:28 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

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #66 on: March 21, 2011, 03:40:24 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.  ::)

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #67 on: March 21, 2011, 03:43:12 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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #68 on: March 21, 2011, 06:39:36 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.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #69 on: March 21, 2011, 07:12:39 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.



Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #70 on: March 21, 2011, 07:17:03 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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #71 on: March 21, 2011, 07:57:21 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 ...


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

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #72 on: March 21, 2011, 07:58:53 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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #73 on: March 21, 2011, 08:00:53 PM »
impeach

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2011, 05:05:39 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 ...