Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2018, 01:41:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 37   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 52936 times)
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7004



« Reply #300 on: March 27, 2011, 04:37:37 PM »

not sycophantic...I just tell the truth..I have said the things I am critical of with Obama....in what way do you agree with Obama?..tell us...



You tell the truth?  Weren't you the one claiming there was secret shit going down that nobody including yourself had knowledge of?  But somehow you still knew about it?
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16673



« Reply #301 on: March 27, 2011, 04:44:11 PM »



You tell the truth?  Weren't you the one claiming there was secret shit going down that nobody including yourself had knowledge of?  But somehow you still knew about it?

I never said I had knowledge of anything....I simply said that Obama and the U.S. government work behind the scenes often and you nor I know the full story of whats going on...the wikileaks cables prove my point....so when you say that Obama doesn't do this or that in a crisis you don't know if thats true or not....nor do I.....that was my point...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #302 on: March 27, 2011, 05:16:09 PM »

Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize


(CNN) -- Dr. Abdulmonem Hresha knows first hand how Moammar Gadhafi's regime works. He says the seeds of his opposition were sown when he was age 10.

He and classmates were taken to witness the public execution of a political opponent of Gadhafi.

"They hung him up in front of thousands of small kids," Hresha said. "He did that to scare people."

Hresha, who taught physics at Tripoli University, later fled to Canada.

The prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood now lives in London, and anticipates the group could become an important player in a post-Gadhafi environment.

As in Egypt and Tunisia, the Brotherhood in Libya has been energized by the sudden upheaval sweeping the Arab world.

It says it has no organizational links with the Brotherhood elsewhere, but shares the philosophy of the pan-Arab Islamist movement founded in Egypt in the 1920s.

Largely drawn from the devout educated middle classes and university campuses in Tripoli and Benghazi, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the mid-1950s.

Islamist opposition to the Libyan regime gathered force in the late 1980s, as part of a wider Islamic awakening or "Sahwa" in the region and in reaction to what many saw as an attempt by Gadhafi to hijack and interpret Islam for his own purposes.

While jihadists launched a brief but unsuccessful campaign to overthrow Gadhafi in the 1990s, the Brotherhood focused much of its efforts on clandestine preaching and social welfare efforts in Libya.0

In 1998, Gadhafi's security services launched a crackdown against the group that saw more than 200 members imprisoned and hundreds more forced into exile, including Hresha.

Despite years of repression, Hresha claims the Brotherhood still has thousands of members scattered across Libya, with chapters in almost every single town, including Sirte, Gadhafi's birthplace on the coast west of Tripoli.

In 2006, its leaders were released after reconciling with the Libyan regime. But now the Brotherhood is siding with the rebellion.

In February, as protests in Libya began, Yusuf al Qaradawi -- an Egyptian preacher in Qatar widely viewed as the Muslim Brotherhood's chief spiritual guide -- issued a fatwa or religious ruling obliging any Libyan soldier who had the opportunity to do so to assassinate the leader.

Al-Amin Bilhaj, a leading figure in the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and the President of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) recently traveled to Benghazi, the headquarters of the rebel movement, according to Hresha.

Other Brotherhood exiles have returned to help treat the wounded in hospitals, according to Kemal el Helbawy, the Egyptian founder of the British association.

There is little or no overt presence of the Brotherhood in Benghazi, according to CNN's Arwa Damon, who has been there for most of the month.

But in the longer term, in a country where the political space has been dominated by Gadhafi for more than 40 years, the Brotherhood's organization and nationwide presence may afford it an advantage.

The West has nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, according to Hresha.

Like their counterparts in Egypt, they would embrace multiparty democracy.

"I've lived for many years in Canada and the UK, and that's exactly the political system that we want," Hresha said.

Hresha says that if his organization forms a political party, it would seek to legislate according to Koranic principles, which would include, for example, a continued ban on the sale of alcohol.

"Why shouldn't we be able to press our point of view -- we are humans too," he said.

Hresha said the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood welcomes airstrikes in Libya, a startling turnaround for a movement that previously supported jihad by Iraqis against U.S. forces occupying Iraq.

"I salute and am very grateful to the Americans, French and British governments for stopping the killing," he said. "I will never forget this."

Hresha said he hopes a post-Gadhafi Libya will be a close friend to the West.

A more prominent role for the Brotherhood in Libya could dent support for al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, especially in eastern provinces that have witnessed significant radicalization in recent years.

But Libya's deeply tribal structures -- unlike Egypt and Tunisia -- may complicate its efforts to build a national base.

And hardline "Salafi" preachers have gained influence in neglected towns like Derna -- on the coast near the border with Egypt.

"Conservative imams (in Derna)," a U.S. diplomat wrote in 2008, "deliberately sought to eliminate the few social activities on offer for young people to monopolize the social and cultural environment."

But in the end, the reach of the Brotherhood may be most limited by the emergence of secular forces at the forefront of the rebel movement.

The Interim National Council in Benghazi -- a 30-member opposition leadership -- is mostly made up of lawyers, doctors, intellectuals and former political prisoners with a secular bent.

In a statement Monday, the Council stated the ultimate goal of the revolution was "to build a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens including ... equal opportunities between men and women and the promotion of women empowerment."

Guma el-Gamaty, a Libyan academic based in the UK who has emerged as a key liaison between the Libyan opposition overseas and the Benghazi Council said no Muslim Brotherhood leaders had yet been appointed to the Council, and played down their influence.

Hresha, the long-time Brotherhood member, expects that to change.

"We've been working secretly till this moment," he said.
 

 
 
 
Links referenced within this article


 

 
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/25/libya.islamists/index.html

 


* obama_beer_ofools.gif (120.1 KB, 500x590 - viewed 56 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #303 on: March 27, 2011, 05:18:36 PM »

One has to wonder if Obama really is trying to help rebuild the caliphate, because that's where these countries are headed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #304 on: March 27, 2011, 05:27:30 PM »

Obama Regime: Libyan Operation could last months

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ahead of President Barack Obama’s national address on Libya, top officials of his administration claimed major strides were being made in bolstering rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces but acknowledged there was no timetable for ending the international operation.

Lawmakers of both parties voiced skepticism over the length, scope and costs of the mission.

“We have to a very large extent completed the military mission in terms of getting it set up. Now, the no-fly zone and even the humanitarian side will have to be sustained for some period of time,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

Asked for how long on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates said, “Nobody knows the answer to that question.” But he said sustaining the no-fly zone would take “a lot less effort” than establishing it. He said the Pentagon was planning to shift some of its resources to European and other countries pledging to take on a larger role.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-27-14-05-34


"Kinetic Military Action".  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #305 on: March 27, 2011, 05:33:07 PM »

The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #306 on: March 27, 2011, 05:35:29 PM »

The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions. 

Grin

I'm not that much of a CTer. I think it has more to do with his incompetence, inexperience, naivety and typical dipshit far-leftist Utopian view of the world.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #307 on: March 27, 2011, 05:36:21 PM »

The CT'er in me says that this is obamas way to try to collapse israel by emboldening its surrounding enemies.  I also believe obama wants a pan arabist caliphate to hold the us hostage on energy so we are brought to our knees in order to further his anti-colonialist visions.  

you're SO new at this CT thing, brah.  The prevalent CT is this:

The billions$ that go missing in afghanistan and iraq go to al-Q.  We feed them $ to keep the war machine going.  We WANT al-Q in libya to do well so we'll have a war tehre down the road, hence our installing a company man to lead them.

Geez, you're so partisan on these CTs.  Alex Jones is 100% right on Obama, but 0% right on Al-Q, hmmm?  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #308 on: March 27, 2011, 05:37:38 PM »

I made up that CT on my own. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #309 on: March 27, 2011, 05:39:21 PM »

I made up that CT on my own. 

alex jones on pp.com right now, is pushing the CT I just listed.

Is he correct?  Or full of shit?  Keep in mind the man spends his life on this stuff and nailed Obama 1000% on his shady shit.  And he did it to Clinton and Bush before that.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #310 on: March 27, 2011, 05:41:07 PM »

alex jones on pp.com right now, is pushing the CT I just listed.

Is he correct?  Or full of shit?  Keep in mind the man spends his life on this stuff and nailed Obama 1000% on his shady shit.  And he did it to Clinton and Bush before that.

im listening to batchelor right now. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #311 on: March 27, 2011, 05:43:22 PM »

im listening to batchelor right now. 

Someone on Batchelor's show laid it out flawlessly last week. In a revolution the most violent and brutal rise up to power and right now that honor belongs to the MB.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #312 on: March 27, 2011, 05:48:09 PM »

U.S.'s Lose-Lose War Objective in Libya: A Tie
by Arnold Ahlert (more by this author)
Posted 03/26/2011 ET
Updated 03/27/2011 ET



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=42489




My late father, a WWll veteran, never had much love for the military.  Respect and a sense of duty, yes, but no love.  He made this clear when I was a kid and we were watching the Army-Navy football game.  "Who are you rooting for?" I asked, knowing how he felt.  "I'm rooting for a tie," he answered.  As I look at what's going on in Libya, with full consideration of who the players are, I'm rooting for the same thing.

Spare me the humanitarian bit.  When you have Islamic jihadists going toe-to-toe with a mass-murdering thug and his followers, humanitarianism is in dangerously short supply.  So, apparently, is sanity.  If Colonel Cuckoo wins, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state that hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.  If the rebels win, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state which hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.

Is there clarity in redundancy?

And then there's Barack Obama, our Backseat-Driver-in-Chief.  I'm waiting for the breathless mainstream media story gushing about how great our "multitasking" President is, given the fact that he can put us in our third war in the Middle East without missing his umpteenth vacation or golf game.  Perhaps, as he did with the NCAA basketball tourney, he can give us his Final Four coalition picks—as in which coalition members will stick around the longest when the outbreak of anti-war fever reaches epidemic proportions.

Remember when the last President was excoriated for his "cowboy diplomacy?"  Remember when humanitarianism wasn't worth a damn when it applied to either the Afghans or the Iraqis?  Remember all those "smart" people who said leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been a better outcome than liberating Iraq?  Remember when a certain man who would be President said removing that thug was a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology?"  Remember when the "experts" said Hussein could be "contained," which amounted to imposing a 12-year, no-fly zone over his country?

Who's going impose a 12-week, no-fly zone over Libya?

Not us.  According to a conversation he had with members of Congress last Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, said the President "expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks. ... It will not be an open-ended effort by the United States."

Sure it won't.  History is replete with heroic tales of Europeans and/or Arabs acting in their own self-interest without American involvement, right?  No doubt after all that aforementioned cowboy diplomacy, the world is ready for the United States of Switzerland to stand on the sidelines, wishing everyone else good luck.

You know what our national interests are in Libya?  Neither do I.  At least with Afghanistan and Iraq, a reasonable case could be made that both posed a threat to our well-being.  And even if one totally disagrees, one would think that we would have learned at least one lesson with respect to military involvement:  "Winning hearts and minds" is an impossible substitute for kicking jihadist butt and coming home.  One can only wonder how another bout of politically correct hairsplitting, as in the current mission's stated goal of imposing a no-fly zone, irrespective of whether or not Gaddafi remains in power, can be taken seriously.  An entire mission dedicated to evening out the odds between the rebels and the loyalists, so they can kill each other more "fairly?" 

Putting American lives on the line to facilitate a tie?

How in the world can America be involved in a war without choosing a side?  Last time I checked, choosing sides was the only reason to put American blood and treasure on the line.  Again, spare me the humanitarian thing.  Gaddafi had an entire month to slaughter innocents while Western nations and the United Nations twiddled their diplomatic fingers searching for a "solution."  And what did they come up with?  Killing innocents with planes?  Bad.  Slaughtering them in house-to-house, hand-to-hand combat?  So far, so "good."

And that's just Libya.  Last week in Yemen, snipers on rooftops killed 46 demonstrators, including three children, who were part of a protest challenging President Ali Abdullah Saleh's 32-year grip on power.  Police sealed off an escape route from the demonstration with a wall of burning tires, effectively turning the protest into a government-led killing field.  In Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, with the support of 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and 500 policemen from the United Arab Emirates, has killed dozens of protesters and wounded or arrested hundreds more in an effort to crush a Shiite-led rebellion against Sunni-controlled government. 

Apparently some manifestations of inhumanity are "more equal" than others.

Here's a modest proposal for Congress.  That would be the same Congress that had no say whatsoever with regard to American involvement in Libya.  Demand two votes be held, one contingent on the other.  In return for putting Americans into this skirmish, a crash program for developing domestic sources of energy must be instituted.  Let's see who votes for what.  Americans deserve to know whether we're always going to be beholden to a bunch of 7th century fanatics, or if there's a common-sense light at the end of the energy tunnel.  Who, besides our clueless President and his enviro-minions, is in favor of $5 gas accompanied by not-so-occasional firefights in the Middle East?  That's the real national security issue this country must face. 

Two months ago, Gaddafi was still "our bastard."  Now he's another dropout from the Barack Obama Muslim Outreach Institute.  When in the world are we going to snap out of it?


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


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #313 on: March 27, 2011, 05:52:47 PM »

U.S.'s Lose-Lose War Objective in Libya: A Tie
by Arnold Ahlert (more by this author)
Posted 03/26/2011 ET
Updated 03/27/2011 ET



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=42489




My late father, a WWll veteran, never had much love for the military.  Respect and a sense of duty, yes, but no love.  He made this clear when I was a kid and we were watching the Army-Navy football game.  "Who are you rooting for?" I asked, knowing how he felt.  "I'm rooting for a tie," he answered.  As I look at what's going on in Libya, with full consideration of who the players are, I'm rooting for the same thing.

Spare me the humanitarian bit.  When you have Islamic jihadists going toe-to-toe with a mass-murdering thug and his followers, humanitarianism is in dangerously short supply.  So, apparently, is sanity.  If Colonel Cuckoo wins, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state that hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.  If the rebels win, we have the makings of a terrorist-led pariah state which hates the West in general, and the United States in particular.

Is there clarity in redundancy?

And then there's Barack Obama, our Backseat-Driver-in-Chief.  I'm waiting for the breathless mainstream media story gushing about how great our "multitasking" President is, given the fact that he can put us in our third war in the Middle East without missing his umpteenth vacation or golf game.  Perhaps, as he did with the NCAA basketball tourney, he can give us his Final Four coalition picks—as in which coalition members will stick around the longest when the outbreak of anti-war fever reaches epidemic proportions.

Remember when the last President was excoriated for his "cowboy diplomacy?"  Remember when humanitarianism wasn't worth a damn when it applied to either the Afghans or the Iraqis?  Remember all those "smart" people who said leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been a better outcome than liberating Iraq?  Remember when a certain man who would be President said removing that thug was a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology?"  Remember when the "experts" said Hussein could be "contained," which amounted to imposing a 12-year, no-fly zone over his country?

Who's going impose a 12-week, no-fly zone over Libya?

Not us.  According to a conversation he had with members of Congress last Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, said the President "expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks. ... It will not be an open-ended effort by the United States."

Sure it won't.  History is replete with heroic tales of Europeans and/or Arabs acting in their own self-interest without American involvement, right?  No doubt after all that aforementioned cowboy diplomacy, the world is ready for the United States of Switzerland to stand on the sidelines, wishing everyone else good luck.

You know what our national interests are in Libya?  Neither do I.  At least with Afghanistan and Iraq, a reasonable case could be made that both posed a threat to our well-being.  And even if one totally disagrees, one would think that we would have learned at least one lesson with respect to military involvement:  "Winning hearts and minds" is an impossible substitute for kicking jihadist butt and coming home.  One can only wonder how another bout of politically correct hairsplitting, as in the current mission's stated goal of imposing a no-fly zone, irrespective of whether or not Gaddafi remains in power, can be taken seriously.  An entire mission dedicated to evening out the odds between the rebels and the loyalists, so they can kill each other more "fairly?" 

Putting American lives on the line to facilitate a tie?

How in the world can America be involved in a war without choosing a side?  Last time I checked, choosing sides was the only reason to put American blood and treasure on the line.  Again, spare me the humanitarian thing.  Gaddafi had an entire month to slaughter innocents while Western nations and the United Nations twiddled their diplomatic fingers searching for a "solution."  And what did they come up with?  Killing innocents with planes?  Bad.  Slaughtering them in house-to-house, hand-to-hand combat?  So far, so "good."

And that's just Libya.  Last week in Yemen, snipers on rooftops killed 46 demonstrators, including three children, who were part of a protest challenging President Ali Abdullah Saleh's 32-year grip on power.  Police sealed off an escape route from the demonstration with a wall of burning tires, effectively turning the protest into a government-led killing field.  In Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, with the support of 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and 500 policemen from the United Arab Emirates, has killed dozens of protesters and wounded or arrested hundreds more in an effort to crush a Shiite-led rebellion against Sunni-controlled government. 

Apparently some manifestations of inhumanity are "more equal" than others.

Here's a modest proposal for Congress.  That would be the same Congress that had no say whatsoever with regard to American involvement in Libya.  Demand two votes be held, one contingent on the other.  In return for putting Americans into this skirmish, a crash program for developing domestic sources of energy must be instituted.  Let's see who votes for what.  Americans deserve to know whether we're always going to be beholden to a bunch of 7th century fanatics, or if there's a common-sense light at the end of the energy tunnel.  Who, besides our clueless President and his enviro-minions, is in favor of $5 gas accompanied by not-so-occasional firefights in the Middle East?  That's the real national security issue this country must face. 

Two months ago, Gaddafi was still "our bastard."  Now he's another dropout from the Barack Obama Muslim Outreach Institute.  When in the world are we going to snap out of it?





Great article.
Report to moderator   Logged
2ND COMING
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5678


Might is right.


WWW
« Reply #314 on: March 27, 2011, 05:59:46 PM »

im listening to batchelor right now. 

You dont happen to have a link do you? Does he stream online?
Report to moderator   Logged

The Hand of Ron
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #315 on: March 27, 2011, 06:04:37 PM »

You dont happen to have a link do you? Does he stream online?


yes - check out the thread i bumped. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #316 on: March 27, 2011, 06:20:36 PM »

Pulitzer Prize Winning Iraq War Critic: 'All Obama Is Saying Is Give War A Chance'
Newsbusters ^
Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:14:25 PM by Sub-Driver

Pulitzer Prize Winning Iraq War Critic: 'All Obama Is Saying Is Give War A Chance' By Noel Sheppard Created 03/27/2011 - 5:42pm

By Noel Sheppard | March 27, 2011 | 17:42 Noel Sheppard's picture

Barack Obama sure is getting support for his Libyan attack from what on the surface would seem a lot of unlikely sources.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraq war critic Tom Ricks told David Gregory, "All Obama is saying is give war a chance" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY: Well, and, Tom Ricks, look, we began the broadcast this morning, Richard Engel's reporting on the progress of the rebels. They're getting closer to Tripoli. Then what? That's the moment we leave? Or are we going to supply the rebels? Are we--I mean, if Gadhafi stays, can we really say this is mission accomplished?

TOM RICKS, CONTRIBUTing EDITOR "FOREIGN POLICY": Yes. I think what they'll say is we gave it a chance. All Obama is saying is give war a chance. Not our war. All we did was kick the door down, let the Brits and the French and the others do it. And I think his notion is we're going to be out of there long before this is resolved. That's the hope. That's the best-case scenario.

For those unfamiliar with Ricks, he is the contributing editor to Foreign Policy magazine as well as a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a national security think tank with very close ties to the Obama administration.

Ricks used to be a special military correspondent for the Washington Post, and wrote "Fiasco" in 2006 which was highly critical of the Iraq war.

He was staunchly opposed to the 2007 troop surge, and said in 2009, "I think that invading Iraq preemptively on false premises, at the time that we already were at war elsewhere, was probably the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy."

Now, two years later with the United States involved in its third military incursion, Ricks is on "Meet the Press" stating, "All Obama is saying is give war a chance."

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #317 on: March 28, 2011, 04:04:12 AM »



Toby Harnden is the Daily Telegraph's US Editor, based in Washington DC. Click here for Toby's website. His email is toby.harnden@telegraph-usa.com. Follow him on Twitter here @tobyharnden and on Facebook here. His second book, Dead Men Risen, is available through Telegraph Books. 10 things Libya tells us about Barack Obama and war


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100081483/barack-obamas-libya-policy-dither-delay-distaste-and-regret




By Toby Harnden World Last updated: March 28th, 2011

91 Comments Comment on this article

America’s intervention in Libya, riding on the coattails of Britain and France, may yet turn out for the best. There are indications that coalition air power has given the rebels the opportunity to stem and perhaps even turn the military tide against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

Regime change may not be a declared objective but if Gaddafi remains in power, that will be a huge blow to American prestige, not to mention the effect on the human rights of ordinary Libyans. But it is very possible that Gaddafi will be killed or overthrown in the coming days.

Much of the Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s intervention strikes me as disingenuous and partisan. There is a moral case for war and the, er, rather unfortunate Western coddling of Gaddafi after 2003 does not alter the fact that his continued presence as Libyan leader represents a threat to America.

Be all that as it may, however, if success is achieved then this will be as much despite as because of Obama’s policies. The past few weeks have betrayed a number of startling truths about the way Obama views the world. Here are 10 of them:

1. Obama prefers to follow Europeans rather than lead them.

2. Obama’s failure to consult Congress further illustrates that much of his campaign rhetoric about President George W. Bush’s foreign policy was bogus (other evidence includes the increase in drone strikes and the maintenance of Guantanamo and the accompanying military tribunal structure).

3. Obama will go to war even when there’s no vital American interest. Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, let the cat out of the bag today.

4. Obama accepts the notion that an American imprimatur on military action is distasteful – running the risk of fuelling anti-Americanism. He seems reluctant to try to persuade nations that America is a force for good, perhaps because he is unsure of this himself.

5. Obama dithers and delays before making a decision and then appears to regret it and pursues the policy he has chosen with half-heartedness (this is what he has done in Afghanistan).

6. Obama is a good speaker but a poor communicator.

7. Obama has a tendency to take “tough” action because he’s afraid of appearing weak (he also did this when he fired General Stanley McChrystal).

8. Obama really does believe in the “international community” and the intrinsic goodness of the UN.

9. Obama will go to war, but would prefer not to admit it.

10. Obama is prepared to go to war with muddled military objectives and no plan for the end game.
Tags: afghanistan, Barack Obama, George W Bush, Guantanamo, Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Robert Gates, US politics

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #318 on: March 28, 2011, 08:00:11 AM »


March 28, 2011
Did Obama Forget to Have a Gaddafi Meeting 'Without Preconditions'?
By Monte Kuligowski




Of all the disturbing and problematic aspects of Obama's post-American military odyssey, what fascinates me is that Obama would rush to half-hearted war with Moammar Gaddafi -- of all people.


After seeing the dreadful force of the U.S. military unleashed on his fellow ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi was crying uncle before George W. Bush could twist his wrist.  In December of 2003, Col. Gaddafi announced to the world that he would be voluntarily abandoning his nuclear weapons program.  "Libya has said it will give up its programmes for developing weapons of mass destruction and allow unconditional inspections," reported BBC News in 2003.


Gaddafi was no Saddam Hussein in the stubbornness department.  The colonel saw the light rather quickly and became an instant convert in support of democratic nation-building.  The Libyan dictator assured Tony Blair and Bush that he wanted to be a partner in making the world a safer place.


In Gaddafi's willingness to have "unconditional" inspections of his facilities and Barack Obama's willingness during the 2008 campaign to sit down with dictators "without preconditions," we see a perfect match.


As crazy as it sounds, Obama's greenhorn idea of meeting with dictators without preconditions might have actually worked in the case of Moammar Gaddafi.


Obama already had connections to Gaddafi via his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan.  Rev. Wright and Farrakhan had traveled together in 1984 to meet with Gaddafi in Tripoli.  And Obama reportedly attended Farrakhan's Million Man March with Wright.  Surely, the four men could have sat down together and hammered things out over some Turkish coffee.


Prior to launching a military attack without the authorization (or even knowledge) of Congress, Obama could have negotiated with Gaddafi -- except maybe with a couple of preconditions.  We were told that the tripartite wonder of Obama's Muslim background, brilliance, and charm would work wonders in certain foreign policy ambits -- but we've yet to see any benefits accrue.


Mr. Obama might have missed his big diplomatic moment to work the magic his disillusioned fans have been waiting for since the failed Olympics bid.


From Gaddafi's perspective, he and Obama were on brotherly terms.  In a recent letter to Obama, Gaddafi called Obama his "son" and expressed his loving affections (for some reason I can't see Moammar calling any other U.S. president his son).  Gaddafi also sent a message to other U.N. leaders:


The tone of the messages was markedly different. The one to President Obama stuck a consolatory tone, while the other was more aggressive - accusing David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy and the Ban ki-Moon of meddling in Libyan affairs.


Obama waited a full week into the unrest before even mentioning Gaddafi's name.  And when Obama did speak out, he did so in general, ambiguous terms.  Then, out of the blue, Obama was calling for Gaddafi to step down and agreeing with Sarkozy's no-fly-zone, and without warning, the USS Barry was firing Tomahawks at the dictator's compounds.


Some "son" Obama proved to be.  In light of Obama's campaign promise to negotiate with dictators, he could have at least warned his father that Sarkozy was serious.


Obama had a unique opportunity for diplomacy, but he did a 180 without rhyme or reason.  Maybe the stresses of entertaining, vacationing, golfing, basketball brackets, and life-and-death decisions were just too much.


If Obama had attempted diplomacy and failed, he then could have tried to get the approval of Congress to launch a full-on invasion.  Only troops on the ground would achieve Obama's objective anyway -- whatever that is.  Whether Obama's objective is to protect the opposition forces or to remove Gaddafi or both, an on-the-ground military presence realistically would be required.  But considering that Libya poses no threat to the U.S., direct or otherwise, I sort of doubt that Congress would have consented.


That's probably why Obama decided to go it alone (with foreign authorization only).  By contrast, the military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress and involved twice as many foreign coalition partners as the Libya coalition.


In rushing into a military attack operation without any real attempt at diplomacy and without the authorization of Congress, one has to wonder what Obama was thinking.


Of course, the worst of all possible scenarios materialized: Obama surrendered U.S. military sovereignty to a U.N. committee and telegraphed to Gaddafi that no clear goal exists, no troops will be sent into Libya, and the bombing operation will end quickly.  Even Gaddafi is not likely to become weak-kneed under that scenario.


The only one likely to get weak-kneed is Obama in trying to spin or redeem his impulsive, sovereignty-yielding war decision -- especially if the Russians decide to assist Gaddafi in the fight.


Whether we're talking about rising employment, skyrocketing health care and gas prices, or post-American foreign policy, Obama seems to have a knack for achieving the worst possible outcome for America.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/did_obama_forget_to_have_a_gad.html at March 28, 2011 - 10:58:54 AM CDT
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21027


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #319 on: March 28, 2011, 10:41:48 AM »

White House: Obama Intervened in Libya Because It Served America’s “Best Interests”

(The Hill)- No sense of precedent guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, administration officials said Monday.

“We don’t make decisions on interventions based on consistency or precedent,” said Denis McDonough, the administration’s deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. “We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

Administration officials wouldn’t outline the contents of Obama’s speech, and McDonough’s remarks suggest Obama is unlikely to lay out any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region



Since when did America’s “best interests” include keeping the French and British fully supplied with Libyan oil?



Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #320 on: March 28, 2011, 12:23:13 PM »

White House says Libya decision based on 'best interests'
By Michael O'Brien - 03/28/11 12:54 PM ET

 
No sense of precedent guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, administration officials said Monday.

We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."


McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.


Administration officials wouldn’t outline the contents of Obama’s speech, and McDonough’s remarks suggest Obama is unlikely to lay out any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts.

Obama will make his case for the short-lived U.S. military offensive in Libya to the public in a speech Monday night from the National Defense University in Washington.

The speech will provide the president his greatest opportunity so far to take his case for intervention in Libya to the public.

Polls have found mixed views on Obama’s decision to join other United Nations members in air strikes against Libya. Lawmakers in both parties have criticized the White House for a lack of consultations, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed a “sometimes contradictory” explanation for the action.

Monday’s speech is part of a blitz by the White House to win support from the public and Congress for Obama’s actions. After Monday’s address, Obama on Tuesday will sit for interviews with the anchors of NBC, ABC and CBS.

McDonough emphasized the differences between the situation in Libya and clashes between anti-government demonstrators and ruling governments in other countries in the Middle East.

In particular, McDonough referenced Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s direct threats of violence against some of his own citizens as part of the reason the U.S. felt compelled to get its military involved in Libya.

Obama sought to reach out to lawmakers last week by providing a briefing to top members of Congress in both parties and from both chambers, notifying them of the progress of military operations and the eventual transfer in responsibility for the operation to NATO, which took charge on Sunday evening.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the White House had no objections to lawmakers asking questions, though he strongly rebuffed the notion that the administration hadn’t been fully forthcoming in its briefings of lawmakers.

“Questions are legitimate; they deserve to be answered,” he said. “We have endeavored to answer them.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

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


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #321 on: March 28, 2011, 04:09:17 PM »

Libyan Rebel Radio: “Brothers Who Fought in Iraq And Afghanistan, Now is the Time to Defend Your Land!”

As I reported on Friday, Libyan rebel commander Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi has admitted to fighting in Afghanistan – namely, on the side of al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and even to recruiting Libyans to join al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Hasadi made these admissions in conversation with Roberto Bongiorni of the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore. Bongiorni’s report from al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah contains another interesting detail: one that suggests just how widespread the participation of the locals in the Afghan and Iraq “jihads” must have been.

Bongiorni describes his arrival in Darnah as follows:

One sees that Darnah is a conservative city from the religious fervor of its inhabitants, from the Islamic manner of dress, from the long beards. “Dear brothers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the announcer on the local radio exhorts…, “Now is the time to defend your land!”

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/28/rebel-libya-%E2%80%9Cbrothers-who-fought-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-now-is-the-time-to-defend-your-land%E2%80%9D/



Yessir Obama, we need to save these terrorists! It fills me with joy knowing that we're fighting alongside people who, up until 3 weeks ago, were trying to kill us.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #322 on: March 28, 2011, 06:41:30 PM »

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

By CALVIN WOODWARD and RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press


Interactives
Role of US, NATO under scrutiny in Libya
Obama on Libya: 'We have a responsibility to act'

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts
 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion - coordinated or not - to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

---

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors - Britain and France - combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

---

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces - and on the supply and communications links that support them - is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

---

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

---

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

---

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so - by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

---

Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #323 on: March 28, 2011, 06:42:40 PM »

Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says
abc ^ | 3/28/11 | George Stephanopoulos




One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.

A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19326


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #324 on: March 28, 2011, 07:05:32 PM »

Obama Speech Analysis: a Weird Journey Through the Mind of a Narcissist
foxnews ^



The President's address was an exercise in psychodrama, a weird journey through the mind of a narcissist who can't believe all the nasty things people are saying about him.

Obama's id is wrestling with the comparisons between his Libyan intervention and George Bush's action in Iraq. He made a point of criticizing Iraq, which had a vastly larger international coalition behind it than Obama does now, united in the struggle to depose an even more gruesome and sadistic monster than Qaddafi. He warned us that we might be stuck in post-Qaddafi Libya for a while because "40 years of terror left Libya fractured." The left never cut Bush any slack for trying to rebuild a country traumatized by decades of terror from Saddam Hussein.

The President's ego is very sensitive to the criticism that his handling of the Libyan situation was lazy and disengaged. He's constructed a new narrative in his own mind, where he "created the conditions for others to step up," leading the Europeans to declare "a willingness to commit resources." Thus does Obama retroactively become the hero of a military operation France, England, and Hillary Clinton dragged him into, and which he authorized with a few peevish phone calls from a South American junket.

Obama is clearly working through some deep issues about the Clintons. He took a few unexpected, oblique shots at Bill Clinton, noting that "the international community waited more than a year" before intervening in Bosnia, while Obama got ordinance dropped on Tripoli "in 31 days." He also congratulated himself for refusing "to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." You might want to put some ice on that, Mr. Clinton.


(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 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!