US urges UN to approve Libya airstrikes, no-fly zone

The UN vote is scheduled for 6PM ET today, anyone think the B2 bombers are already in the air to disable Gadahfi's air defense systems?

I need spell check, too: Libya

Looks like the strategy is moving along well. I think Obama is playing this one perfectly...

-spence

Looks like the strategy is moving along well. I think Obama is playing this one perfectly...

-spence

I think Gadahfi has a better strategy: recapture the key strategic areas of the country BEFORE the rest of the world, including the US, gets it act together!

I think it's taken some time to 1) build the consensus so there's an Arab face on this action rather than being seen as pure US intervention and 2) let it play out a bit. This deal would also give the Saudi Royal Family some cover as they crack down internally and help in Bahrain...NOTE: Both strategic US allies.

As Iran tries to stir the pot there's the Sunni/Shiite dynamic as well here. Iran would really like the (mostly Shiite) protests in Bahrain to be successful.

And the simple fact of what happened in Egypt will put pressure on even the US allies to reform faster.

Ultimately it's probably in our best interest to let these events push reforms more slowly without destabilizing the region or strengthening Iran.

Considering the complexity and variability of the situation, its actually not looking all that terrible. Obama seems to have been pretty careful to not make statements or promises we can't keep, something very different from Bush.

And if the UN does impose a no fly zone in Lybia, who's going to stand behind the Lybian Govt? The Sudan??? I'm not sure the regime can survive...

-spence

why are we getting involved here?
I think we should stay away. All the neighboring countries have armies and air forces, why arent they sending them in?
US should stay out. We have nothing to gain there except get more blame from them for their problems
I know peoples memories are short but a year or so ago we were applauding Ghadafi for his support and now he is a brutal dictator? come on

why are we getting involved here?
I think we should stay away. All the neighboring countries have armies and air forces, why arent they sending them in?
US should stay out. We have nothing to gain there except get more blame from them for their problems
I know peoples memories are short but a year or so ago we were applauding Ghadafi for his support and now he is a brutal dictator? come on

I think we're trying to draw a line between the brutal regimes we want to support and the brutal regimes we think are ripe for accelerated reform.

While we don't want to get into a real battle, it does seem like Ghaddafi has crossed the line with his actions...they're going to squeeze him until he pops.

-spence

I think it's taken some time to 1) build the consensus so there's an Arab face on this action rather than being seen as pure US intervention and 2) let it play out a bit.

You're bleeping me? Give it more time. I am not a fan of intervention here (I think maybe Europe steps up on this one and we support that effort). But by the time the admin gets going, this will be all over. If you allow more time for Arab consensus it is long over. The only good new if the Arabs DO IT with an d ARAB face is that at least the Junior Varsity will be going against the Middle School squad. The action windows is nearly closed.

This deal would also give the Saudi Royal Family some cover as they crack down internally and help in Bahrain...NOTE: Both strategic US allies.

Yes, tough nut to decipher on this one.

As Iran tries to stir the pot there's the Sunni/Shiite dynamic as well here. Iran would really like the (mostly Shiite) protests in Bahrain to be successful.

Speaking of Iran, arming AQ/Taliban now. And reports are going around that a ship bound for Hamas has been intercepted with Anti Ship Missiles (not RPGs) and a Chinese ship was intercepted with WMD components bound for Iran.

Considering the complexity and variability of the situation, its actually not looking all that terrible. Obama seems to have been pretty careful to not make statements or promises we can't keep, something very different from Bush.

Spencism Alert! Spencism Alert! Spencism Alert!

And if the UN does impose a no fly zone in Lybia, who's going to stand behind the Lybian Govt? The Sudan??? I'm not sure the regime can survive...

-spence

Well, you could have a repeat of the last two wars in the middle east. No Fly Zones do not occupy territory.

You're bleeping me? Give it more time. I am not a fan of intervention here (I think maybe Europe steps up on this one and we support that effort). But by the time the admin gets going, this will be all over. If you allow more time for Arab consensus it is long over. The only good new if the Arabs DO IT with an d ARAB face is that at least the Junior Varsity will be going against the Middle School squad. The action windows is nearly closed.
We'll see how close they really are. Clearly the Admin is not going to go it alone, nor should we. I think the bigger piece is that Khadaffi is now seen as damaged goods by even much of the Arab leadership.

Speaking of Iran, arming AQ/Taliban now. And reports are going around that a ship bound for Hamas has been intercepted with Anti Ship Missiles (not RPGs) and a Chinese ship was intercepted with WMD components bound for Iran.
Never seen a report of Iran arming al Qaeda. Sending arms to Palestine is nothing new...

Spencism Alert! Spencism Alert! Spencism Alert!
No, it's just a remark. And one I think that's defend-able. Bush would have made some dramatic remarks about standing up for those who seek freedom, the neocons would have had a circle jerk, and then they'd do nothing.

Well, you could have a repeat of the last two wars in the middle east. No Fly Zones do not occupy territory.
I think the calculus in Libya might not be in Khadaffi's favor. The real end game may be to get regime ending concessions.

-spence

We'll see how close they really are. Clearly the Admin is not going to go it alone, nor should we. I think the bigger piece is that Khadaffi is now seen as damaged goods by even much of the Arab leadership.


Never seen a report of Iran arming al Qaeda. Sending arms to Palestine is nothing new...


No, it's just a remark. And one I think that's defend-able. Bush would have made some dramatic remarks about standing up for those who seek freedom, the neocons would have had a circle jerk, and then they'd do nothing.


I think the calculus in Libya might not be in Khadaffi's favor. The real end game may be to get regime ending concessions.

-spence

Window is closing. Center of gravity was Tripoli, now it is Benghazi. Window. Closing. No time for high end fencing around an issue. Not that I support it...

Never seen a report of Iran arming al Qaeda. Sending arms to Palestine is nothing new... One of several reports but I'll use the NYTimes one: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html


China-Iran - take your pick (though it is earlier in this news story) Google (http://www.google.com/#q=iran+weapons+china+ship&hl=en&tbs=qdr:d&prmd=ivnsu&ei=PIqCTbCbBsS10QGS0PzHCA&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ad4593efca438a14)

Obama when he doesn't do something or pick a side is good while displaying a certain elan and obvious high intelligence lost on the masses, Bush is bad - I get it. :love:

Time will cost lives. Best to either get it on early or not at all.

It's a go for bombing!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

labial rejuvenation :love:

they (daffy) will target the oil field i bet b4 the bombers arrive

so O is on TV threatening action against Libya. Not the UN, not the Arabs, us....can someone tell me WHY?

so O is on TV threatening action against Libya. Not the UN, not the Arabs, us....can someone tell me WHY?
Well, there seems to be pretty strong support from EU and the other Arab nations.

Justification is because the Libyan government has turned to using the military against their own people without much regard. It looks like they've been bombing and shelling killing just about anyone. I've really some really gruesome stories.

Fear is that atrocities will increase and cause a humanitarian crisis which would destabilize the region, especially considering the events in Tunisia and Egypt right next door.

At least that's the reasoning he gave when he spoke today.

-spence

so O is on TV threatening action against Libya. Not the UN, not the Arabs, us....can someone tell me WHY?

it's for the campaign of course !

looking like our fearless leader big and bold

he da man ....photo op city (and sound bite)

a President in control as leader of the world
makes him APPEAR to be more re-electable

in a NUTSHELL

Well, there seems to be pretty strong support from EU and the other Arab nations.

Justification is because the Libyan government has turned to using the military against their own people without much regard. It looks like they've been bombing and shelling killing just about anyone. I've really some really gruesome stories.

Fear is that atrocities will increase and cause a humanitarian crisis which would destabilize the region, especially considering the events in Tunisia and Egypt right next door.

At least that's the reasoning he gave when he spoke today.

-spence

Well thankfully he got off the golf course and said something. Now he can send Hillary out in the world to do his bidding.

Well thankfully he got off the golf course and said something. Now he can send Hillary out in the world to do his bidding.

Quite thoughtful analysis. And you didn't even have to bring up his Islamic heritage!

-spence

he's not golfing -he's in rio for carnivale! what a tool...

he's not golfing -he's in rio for carnivale! what a tool...

Carnivale in Rio was over a week ago...tool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wherever he is/was he gave the OK to launch 110 Tomahawk missiles at Libya!

project
O.D. well under way

I am starting to see a pattern here. I think Spence is really Obama.......

At the very least either his press secretary or the head groupie of his fan club


:hee:

I am starting to see a pattern here. I think Spence is really Obama.......
Now that's a compliment :hihi:

-spence

my bad spencey...he's still a $%^%$ tool :). how many times has he been on the golf course- close to 50. who's he think he is- tiger woods?

my bad spencey...he's still a $%^%$ tool :). how many times has he been on the golf course- close to 50. who's he think he is- tiger woods?

How many hours a day do you think he's actively working on average?

12?

14?

-spence

How many hours a day do you think he's actively working on average?

12?

14?

-spence

since you know all obama, why don't you tell us...

My bad he was golfing while Japan was under water. I never said anything about Islamic heritage. I could really give a hoot what his religion is. Doesn't affect my world. I could care less. He was Picking out his brackets while Libya was burning.

None of it matters. Until people decide this country is more important than red or blue we are all going to spin our wheels. As long as people like you Spence sit back on your throne and justify and rationalize moves by politicians based on red or blue we are all screwed.

There is zero accountability in government anymore. There hasn't been for quite a while. Our officials are the new Celebrity and people believe what is put in front of them by Couric, Williams and others.

So enjoy sitting back writing your quippy remarks and feel good about how intelligent your responses are. After all you are debating politics with the people that are affected by them. Not the people that practice them. We are all the real world and we live and die in the confines of what has been laid forth for us and make the best of it.

Come on Spence, Obama missed the boat. He should have bombed Libya 2 weeks ago before K(G)hadafi attack his people. This week is too late. Now wait, acually he never should do it. let the arab countries deal with it? I mean, where is his leadership on this? Why does he spend so much time fishing and cutting brush on his range in Texas? Oh yeah, wrong guy. Why is he playing so much golf? There are only 24 hours in the day. The constitution mandates a 30 hour workday. Shouldn't he be working on that cold fusion problem. He has done nothing since he became president. Except all those things that I disagree with, like raise my taxes, but other than that he hasn't done anything. :rotf2:

he brought us change

he says the word every time he's on TV
several times

My bad he was golfing while Japan was under water.

Clearly he hates Japanese people.

Sooooo, what's the exit statagy for Lybia? I think he set a date for the troops to withdraw though:biglaugh:

I heard Michelle is so upset over this and has implemented a no fly zone over her Lybia until this situation is resolved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly he hates Japanese people.

Sooooo, what's the exit statagy for Lybia?

That's the Big question.
IF it's like Obama said "we are there to protect the people",
we would have to pull out after a truce or cease fire with Qaddafi still in the drivers seat.
Then what?

IF it's like Obama said a few weeks ago, that " Qaddafi must go",
he's a day late and a dollar short and could have sent a Tomahawk down his chimney like Regan did. Fewer lives lost.
That would have ended Qaddafi and the support money he pays the mercenaries. But then there would be his sons to contend with.

I remember seeing Gaddafi after the Tomahawk strike and he was a broken man
and prolly in a rubber room for quite some time.
Kept him in his place for many years in addition to him volunteering
to give up is WMD"s after 9/11.
The only thing that keeps these people in check is fear of power.

Sounds like a fly by the seat of your pants operation to me.

A common theme stated by me is that the US is *not* the world's police force.

We waited for a UN resolution before taking part in this. Quite frankly, I'm glad the US waited for a multi-national resolution as opposed to making the same mistake twice and jumping into a fight on it's own.

It was declared early that US activity would be supportive with all major roles completed over a few days. We aren't holding the reins in this mess and I'm glad for that.

Now, if the US went into this fight alone, the same people complaining that he waited too long to attack would be bitching that we're paying for yet another war. Bitching just to bitch.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about what happens in N. Africa and the Middle East. The entire region is a train wreck and our money would be much better spent towards domestic issues than drone strikes in Pakistan, a futile war in Afghanistan and keeping troops in that ungrateful toilet that is Iraq.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;845762]A common theme stated by me is that the US is *not* the world's police force.

We waited for a UN resolution before taking part in this. Quite frankly, I'm glad the US waited for a multi-national resolution as opposed to making the same mistake twice and jumping into a fight on it's own.

It was declared early that US activity would be supportive with all major roles completed over a few days. [QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ __________

I agree we shouldn't be the world's police force.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Multi-national resolution or not WE will end up taking the blame as we are taking
91% of the up front action anyway.

__________________________________________________ ___________
Who ever declared early that the US activity would be supportive with all major
rolls completed over a few days must have been :smokin: the funnie weed.

Which of Obama's statements is true. Gaddafi must go or we are there just to
help the people?

Who ever declared early that the US activity would be supportive with all major
rolls completed over a few days must have been :smokin: the funnie weed.

Which of Obama's statements is true. Gaddafi must go or we are there just to
help the people?
Clearly there's an agreement that France and the UK would pretty much take over once we secured the airspace. While the US has a strategic interest here, France especially has a long history with northern Africa and lasting interests.

As for Obama's statements, I thought they have been pretty clear on this. While the position of the Administration is that Ghaddafi should go, the legal resolution is only to protect the civilians and as such that is the direct mission.

They appear to be very mindful of the slippery slope and also the strategic situation.

Put yourself in Obama's shoes here and I think many would come to the same conclusion.

Qaddafi will detonate a nuclear device in is country, before he gives it up.

An ancient oracle, actually, many have foreseen the next 12 months as the end of days.

Limits don't count this year.

Qaddafi will detonate a nuclear device in is country, before he gives it up.

An ancient oracle, actually, many have foreseen the next 12 months as the end of days.

Limits don't count this year.

So what you're saying is that it has nothing to do with Obama???

-spence

Carnivale in Rio was over a week ago...tool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence called me a tool- i consider that a compliment :rotf2: coming from our resident quasi elite intellectual.

that's ....resident quasi elite "pseudo" intellectual:uhuh:

and they've apparently heard of Spence across the pond

"But the history of this ignominious chapter in American foreign policy is already being re-written in Washington with an enthusiastic chorus of support from Obama fans here: on Friday, Labour backbenchers and the BBC were already suggesting that all this apparent floundering was actually part of a superbly clever strategy. America had deliberately refrained from taking the lead on Libya, thus allowing “space” for the Arab nations and the UN to “take their proper place” as the authors of any intervention policy. Contrary to appearances then, Mr Obama is not out of his depth. Neither is he a cynic who secretly wants to keep Gaddafi in power for the sake of a quiet life (sometimes known as “stability in the region”) while he struggles with Congress over his tricky domestic programme. In other words, they were only pretending to be useless: it may have looked like a collapse of moral leadership to you but it really went completely according to plan. "

If the Founding Fathers could see Obama now - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8392789/If-the-Founding-Fathers-could-see-Obama-now.html)

not all weed is "funny"
there is a certain variety that is and it's referred to as "giggle grass"
OR, you might as well have polished off a large bottle of WINE
because you'll be so silly after wards...

Most weed is: read fast, introspective ,sound enhancement, semi chuckle.

Clearly there's an agreement that France and the UK would pretty much take over once we secured the airspace. While the US has a strategic interest here, France especially has a long history with northern Africa and lasting interests.




So your feeling pretty good about the French being in charge of our brave men and women????

If I can see through the BS I'm sure we have not duped the Islamic radicals. That is the plan isn't it?????????

AWe waited for a UN resolution before taking part in this. Quite frankly, I'm glad the US waited for a multi-national resolution as opposed to making the same mistake twice and jumping into a fight on it's own.

It was declared early that US activity would be supportive with all major roles completed over a few days. We aren't holding the reins in this mess and I'm glad for that.



Hmmmm sounds like Iraq!

heh...heh...

Politico
By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 3/19/11 4:27 PM EDT

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Read more: Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1HBr8qsuE)

I wonder if they were "hard core" or just "mainstream centrists" when they questioned the previous pres.

Neither is he a cynic who secretly wants to keep Gaddafi in power for the sake of a quiet life (sometimes known as “stability in the region”)

Also known as "peace between wars in the region." :hihi:

hey, when they predictably drag some bodies out for the cameras and claim that a tomahawk went astray and hit a wedding, can we start referring to Barry O'Bomber as "the war criminal"?

Gadahfi doesn't care about the people that live there. Never did never will. His family will nuke the place before we kill them all

And no it has nothing to do with Barry. He's in Rio, as far away from current events as possible.

Gadahfi doesn't care about the people that live there. Never did never will. His family will nuke the place before we kill them all



which is why I'm sure he's not above laying some bodies in front of a destroyed building with a big hand written sign that says "BABY MILK FACTORY" in english for media consumption...part of the routine in these situations...that was my point

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.

because the international community all voted YES
to stop daffy

there is no such thing as zero civilian casualties in WAR

although our Present technologies keeps that to a minimum
it is still going to happen and is unfortunate.

DAFFY just like sadam insane coulda walked with big bucks
instead they wanna be dead....and have stuck around.

seeing their heads on a pike will be a GOOD horror

spence called me a tool- i consider that a compliment :rotf2: coming from our resident quasi elite intellectual.

Quasi?

-spence

So your feeling pretty good about the French being in charge of our brave men and women????
Do you think US troops haven't ever participated in UN and NATO actions before?

If I can see through the BS I'm sure we have not duped the Islamic radicals. That is the plan isn't it?????????
Huh?

-spence

Gadahfi doesn't care about the people that live there. Never did never will. His family will nuke the place before we kill them all
And I think that's exactly the concern...another Rwanda like slaughter.

-spence

Quasi?

-spence


quasi-
 
a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific.
Origin:
< Latin quasi as if, as though, equivalent to qua ( m ) as + sī if

The only question being actively debated in and around the oval office is 'how do we hang this on the prior administration?'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

quasi-
 
a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific.
Origin:
< Latin quasi as if, as though, equivalent to qua ( m ) as + sī if
Well aware of what it means...I'm just more than a bit offended you don't consider me a full blown ELITE :hihi:

-spence

The only question being actively debated in and around the oval office is 'how do we hang this on the prior administration?'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another huh?

-spence

Well aware of what it means...I'm just more than a bit offended you don't consider me a full blown ELITE :hihi:

-spence

I'm pretty sure Don meant that you are a full blown elitist. Your'e just quasi intellectual.:)

I'm pretty sure Don meant that you are a full blown elitist. Your'e just quasi intellectual.:)
Good...I believe in balance.

-spence

I'll be curious if this actually happens:
"In the coming days, U.S. officials said they plan to hand over operational control of the military mission. The coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain.

"One of the things that was very much on (U.S. President Barack Obama's) mind is the importance of a meaningful coalition, meaning other countries making serious military contributions so the United States isn't carrying the preeminent responsibility for an indefinite period of time," Gates said."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

The British, French and Italians are taking a major role in this effort. From reports, it seems that those three countries have been the major players of the aerial assault with the US providing support mostly with Tomahawk Missiles and the occasional Stealth Bomber.

I'm glad the US didn't jump into being the spearhead of this operation. Right now, the UN has the support of the Arab League. I highly doubt that would be the case if the US initiated the assault without full UN approval.

"One of the things that was very much on (U.S. President Barack Obama's) mind is the importance of a meaningful coalition, meaning other countries making serious military contributions so the United States isn't carrying the preeminent responsibility for an indefinite period of time," Gates said."


Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.

as used in the term FisherCAT

because it has a tail + climbs trees
my what big teeth you have
-the better to eat you with.... :soon:

The British, French and Italians are taking a major role in this effort. From reports, it seems that those three countries have been the major players of the aerial assault with the US providing support mostly with Tomahawk Missiles and the occasional Stealth Bomber.

I'm glad the US didn't jump into being the spearhead of this operation. Right now, the UN has the support of the Arab League. I highly doubt that would be the case if the US initiated the assault without full UN approval.

Hopefully all our involvement will be the part where we kick the door down; Command and control, Integrated Air Defenses, etc. Big difference in US capability versus the the other countries. I hope it works.

As for Arab League support, don't count on much, for long.

Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.

This is what I fear will happen.

Hopefully Col Q's military and Mercs flip on him. Of course at this stage of the game even if Q is gone and the rebels take over we'll have one of 3 things happen:

1) Rebels will go all fundamentalist anyway.

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.

3) We might have some semblance of a modern democracy that remembers help from the west.

Don't expect the latter.

It dawned on me the other day when / where I do most of my philosophical thinking / reading, one great difference between the regions involved based on phrases is:



Islam: the shout "Insh' Allah" If God Wills It.
Christianity: "God helps those that help themselves"

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?

Islam: the shout "Insh' Allah" If God Wills It.
Christianity: "God helps those that help themselves"

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?

My understanding of it was that Constantine became a Christian and it
spread under his influence in Rome and then Northward.
Why Northward? Maybe better communication, roads etc.
What always blows my mind is how quickly it spread through the
world by word of mouth as there was no formal communication
system, newspaper, radio or TV.

Just a guess on my part, but being there were so many different tribes with
their religious believes in the South, it wasn't fertile ground for conversion?

Wishfull thinking on the part of the Administration.

Gut feeling tells me we will end up, as usual, picking up most
of the military action and expense.
Personally, I don't think so. Gates has been pretty consistent in stating every day that the major US role will be only a few days long and then we will be handing the reins over to the other countries. After the initial destruction of the Libyan SAM sites by B2 Bombers, it seems that most missions, including active enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, are being carried out by other countries. This, I like.

As I said before, it's yet to be seen.

My understanding of it was that Constantine became a Christian and it
spread under his influence in Rome and then Northward.
Why Northward? Maybe better communication, roads etc.
What always blows my mind is how quickly it spread through the
world by word of mouth as there was no formal communication
system, newspaper, radio or TV.

Just a guess on my part, but being there were so many different tribes with
their religious believes in the South, it wasn't fertile ground for conversion?


My point - I didn't make clear enough, was the rapid transformation - mostly of the good - of the western and eastern parts of the world while largely leapfrogging Africa and the Middle East.

News reports say 2 Tomahawks hit the compound by British submarine.

Seven more were scheduled to hit it also but because CNN and Reuters
reporters were invited in to view the damage they had to cancel.

Sounds like Gaddafi was smarter than the reporters.

No knocking, not going into great humor, but why did the (supposed) maturation of society / civilization seem to jump over large swaths of land between Morocco and western China?
A good friend always jokes: "Those people in the Middle East should be like the Jetsons by now. They had thousands of years of a head start over the rest of the world. The problem is that their religion is screwed up and they can't keep killing each other in the name of Allah."

There's definitely some truth to it.

In business, I've always felt "if we aren't moving forward, we're moving backwards." The Middle East hasn't moved forward in the last few thousand years.

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.
Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

-spence

Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

-spence


Why would Iran try to expand its sphere of influence of Sunni Taliban in Afg? Why would Iran try to influence Sunnis in Turkey? Sunnis in Syria? Hamas?

Why would Iran try to expand its sphere of influence of Sunni Taliban in Afg? Why would Iran try to influence Sunnis in Turkey? Sunnis in Syria? Hamas?
Because they''re trying to secure their borders for the most part. Hamas is certainly a marriage of convenience, but a proxy war with the Zionists is often good PR.

I'm not saying that Iran won't try to influence Libya, but I'm not sure the conditions really exist to get much in return.

-spence

Well Iran doesn't have much oil. So takin Libya into a consolidated state would improve things.

Why doesn't the UN annex it and give it to the Palestinians?

Because they''re trying to secure their borders for the most part.
-spence

:rotf2: :jester::smokin::hihi:

Secure their borders :rotflmao:

WTH, Obama is turning the war over to a Political Steering Committee
and without us even knowing what our objective is.
Insane.

When did it become a War? :huh:

:rotf2: :jester::smokin::hihi:

Secure their borders :rotflmao:
Huh?

Iran is most focused on neighboring states. Not sure where the joke is, unless you just took a long toke and need to giggle :smokin:

-spence

When did it become a War? :huh:

Aside from war does anyone know what it's called except maybe a Police Action
by the Political Steering Committee?

Aside from war does anyone know what it's called except maybe a Police Action
by the Political Steering Committee?

Generally speaking war is a legal term. Vietnam, Korea...not wars...yikes.

I wouldn't call this a "war"...yet...although I doubt (i.e. hope) it doesn't go there. Depends on how we don't react to Ghaddafi's provocations.

-spence

YouTube - Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA)

Generally speaking war is a legal term. Vietnam, Korea...not wars...yikes.

I wouldn't call this a "war"...yet...although I doubt (i.e. hope) it doesn't go there. Depends on how we don't react to Ghaddafi's provocations.

-spence

I wonder if the pilot and the gunner of that plane that when down thought it was a war as they parachuted down into unknown territory?

This is a war and if ever a war was about oil, this is it. It's not for us though. CHANGE MY A$$

This is a war and if ever a war was about oil, this is it. It's not for us though. CHANGE MY A$$
There is no part of the above that makes any sense or has any reputable information to support it.

First Obama is incompetent because he chose not to attack Ghaddafi alone and wait for international support. Now, it's a war about oil with the US and all of Europe in on the cover up.

I can understand not liking the guy's policies but at least try and be consistent from day to day.

I wonder if the pilot and the gunner of that plane that when down thought it was a war as they parachuted down into unknown territory?

Oh Jesus...

-spence

YouTube - Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA)

Context.

-spence

There is no part of the above that makes any sense or has any reputable information to support it.

First Obama is incompetent because he chose not to attack Ghaddafi alone and wait for international support. Now, it's a war about oil with the US and all of Europe in on the cover up.

I can understand not liking the guy's policies but at least try and be consistent from day to day.

I'll let you google around JD and figure it out. I'll give you a hint. Ireland bailout, Greece bailout, where they get their oil and why Britain and France care. Have at it!

YouTube - Muslim democrats, Ron Paul reject imperial interventions - spsyed analysis on Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSIDUio3yk4&NR=1)

Oh Jesus...

-spence

I know, easy to say its not a war when you sit by your cushy desk. I like to think of the guys flying the missions and their kids and families waiting at home. At least Iraq and Afhgan there was some threat, real or perceived to the US. Whats the deal in Libya.....oh, we're fighting to protect the people.....what people? Are they good guys, bad guys? Well.... we dont know. Whats the "intelligence" saying....we dont know....plan? exit strategy? Hmmmm, i guess it doesnt matter cause its not a war.

I know, easy to say its not a war when you sit by your cushy desk. I like to think of the guys flying the missions and their kids and families waiting at home. At least Iraq and Afhgan there was some threat, real or perceived to the US. Whats the deal in Libya.....oh, we're fighting to protect the people.....what people? Are they good guys, bad guys? Well.... we dont know. Whats the "intelligence" saying....we dont know....plan? exit strategy? Hmmmm, i guess it doesnt matter cause its not a war.

Agreed, it is a war and there isn't any other way to describe it. Just ask one of our Military guys who are involved and tell them or their families this isn't a War.

I’d like Obama to answer he question directly, if we are really there for the people than why aren't we in Sudan and Yemen for those people too? China and Russia are sitting back while we are spending money we don't have and looking really bad right now. Obama is too busy telling Brazil we are going to help them with their offshore oil drilling............

it's not a war....it's a "kinetic military action"....you'll see:uhuh:

Yea, the dumbing of America continues.

I know, easy to say its not a war when you sit by your cushy desk. I like to think of the guys flying the missions and their kids and families waiting at home. At least Iraq and Afhgan there was some threat, real or perceived to the US. Whats the deal in Libya.....oh, we're fighting to protect the people.....what people? Are they good guys, bad guys? Well.... we dont know. Whats the "intelligence" saying....we dont know....plan? exit strategy? Hmmmm, i guess it doesnt matter cause its not a war.

"cushy desk" ???

Double Jesus.

-spence

First Obama is incompetent because he chose not to attack Ghaddafi alone and wait for international support. Now, it's a war about oil with the US and all of Europe in on the cover up.

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?

Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.

This isn't about Newt Gingrich or Mother's Day.........

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

(Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

(Obama) A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Exec_Power_War_+_Peace.htm

ready the planes....

CNN) -- Germany and the United Kingdom are pulling nonessential embassy staff out of Yemen, they said Thursday, with the British citing "the rapid deterioration in the security situation."

Both nations are keeping small core staffs in place in Sanaa, they said.

Yemen, a key U.S. ally and a central battleground against al Qaeda, has been wracked by protests since the beginning of the year. Support for President Ali Abdullah Saleh appears to be slipping away.

To date, the air attacks on Libyan targets have been predominantly American. In a 24-hour period as of late Wednesday, 175 sorties were flown, 113 by the United States, U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Gerald P. Hueber told reporters from the U.S. command ship in the Mediterranean Sea.

His portrayal suggested a long slog might lie ahead.

"We have no indication that Gadhafi's forces are adhering to United Nations Resolution 1973," which authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone and demanded that government forces pull back from population centers, said Hueber, chief of staff for U.S. operations. "Our intelligence today is there's no indication that Gadhafi's forces are pulling back."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates no doubt reflected the views of many military commanders when he warned weeks ago that establishing a no-fly zone was a big, complicated operation tantamount to an act of war — and one with questionable viability.

I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?


Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.



I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

I'm of the mindset that don't need to be there. Period. Q/G/Khadaffi is a pretty evil dictator, but there are alot of those. where do we draw the line? is this oil driven? human rights? flexing abit for some of the other countries? I don't know.

As long as it stays at this level, I can live with it (i.e. we are truly just helping to level the playing field) but I don't want to see troops on the ground there, any more than I want to see them in Afgan or Iraq. Provided, we actually do hand control to the UK or France, both of them have a longer history in that part of the world, let them deal with it.

Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

I
Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

I think the last declared war was WWII, no?
Gates said it was "tantamount to war"
I have no clue what "tantamount" means but I bet its more like war than not....:jump1:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;846825]I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

yes, Obama and Biden, perhaps they can impeach each other :uhuh:

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence

Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

Yes, twice actually :hihi:

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"

The only one flipping around here is Obama.....and your expectations for Obama

Problem solved

YouTube - President Barack Obama locked out of White House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAPpkljvEQY)

Yes, twice actually :hihi:

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

Read it again then. Obama says “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

I’m not Taking it out of context at all.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?

Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.

Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.
This might be the most ignorant post ever made on these forums.

Recently watched Happy Gilmore and this seems rather applicable:
Mr. [Branford], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever [read]. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone [on this forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

This might be the most ignorant post ever made on these forums.

Recently watched Happy Gilmore and this seems rather applicable:
Mr. [Branford], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever [read]. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone [on this forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


The scary thing, is that over 'there' BJ is one of the 'moderate' ones....
Of course he is trying to wreck America, just like Bush tried to do w/ Iraq so he and his buddies could make more oil money.... :smash: (obvious sarcasm)


And Buckman, I'm not flipping on or regretting my vote (yet). One way I like to think about it (and remember in '04 when my choice was Bush or Kerry I would have prefered McCain to both) How would, say McCain(/Pin), have handled this differently?
McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/mccain-obama-waited-too-long-in-libya/)

Sounds like he would have done the same thing (No-fly zone) but two weeks earlier w/o UN support. Because two weeks earlier would have magically reach a good outcome, that now can't happen because we waited a fortnight? Give me a break. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by the right for the rest of his time as preseident, be it 2 or 6 years. He could probably give the OK to the shot that kills Bin Laden (assuming he is alive and they find him) and Newt et al., would critisize him for the placement of the bullet..

The scary thing, is that over 'there' BJ is one of the 'moderate' ones....
Of course he is trying to wreck America, just like Bush tried to do w/ Iraq so he and his buddies could make more oil money.... :smash: (obvious sarcasm)
If it wasn't for an ignorant public (supporting both parties), we might actually get competent people into office. And people yell at me for thinking *fewer* people should be allowed to vote.

Yea, the dumbing of America continues.

Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.

'Nuff Said

If it wasn't for an ignorant public (supporting both parties), we might actually get competent people into office. And people yell at me for thinking *fewer* people should be allowed to vote.

I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to
run for office.
Give credit and don't under estimate the average American citizen for having common sense and knowing right from wrong.

God help us if we ever got to the point that only the avante gard ivy league
grads were allowed to vote. They've done enough damage to our American
way of life.

I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to run for office.


and the ones that are around really don't want to have to put up with the BS and smearing of ones reputation that always accompanies a campaign....for any office

I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to
run for office.
Give credit and don't under estimate the average American citizen for having common sense and knowing right from wrong.

God help us if we ever got to the point that only the avante gard ivy league
grads were allowed to vote. They've done enough damage to our American
way of life.

I think the average American citizen has enough common sense to know right from wrong, but I also think the average American citizen doesn’t take the time to read up and educate themselves on elections and what the people running really stand for. I think a lot of average American citizens do not vote based truly off of the issues. I don’t think they take the time to form an opinion on their own. I personally know too many intelligent (above average) people that have voted for someone based off of looks, background, religion, college or business they attended, gender, race, etc, etc). I have good friends who are in a Union who have said, “Personally I’d rather vote for this person but I’m voting for that person because of my Union. People don’t think about things themselves these days, it seems they vote more off of influences (friends, family, media, Hollywood, self interest groups, corporations, etc.) This goes for everyone across all parties.

Just my take on it……..

I think the average American citizen has enough common sense to know right from wrong, but I also think the average American citizen doesn’t take the time to read up and educate themselves on elections and what the people running really stand for. I think a lot of average American citizens do not vote based truly off of the issues. I don’t think they take the time to form an opinion on their own. I personally know too many intelligent (above average) people that have voted for someone based off of looks, background, religion, college or business they attended, gender, race, etc, etc). I have good friends who are in a Union who have said, “Personally I’d rather vote for this person but I’m voting for that person because of my Union. People don’t think about things themselves these days, it seems they vote more off of influences (friends, family, media, Hollywood, self interest groups, corporations, etc.) This goes for everyone across all parties.

Just my take on it……..
Started typing then looked up and saw your post... pretty much my point exactly. Ignorance isn't directly correlated to intelligence. There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."

Started typing then looked up and saw your post... pretty much my point exactly. Ignorance isn't directly correlated to intelligence. There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."

PRBuzz isn't going to like to hear this.......

And Buckman, I'm not flipping on or regretting my vote (yet). One way I like to think about it (and remember in '04 when my choice was Bush or Kerry I would have prefered McCain to both) How would, say McCain(/Pin), have handled this differently?
McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/mccain-obama-waited-too-long-in-libya/)

Sounds like he would have done the same thing (No-fly zone) but two weeks earlier w/o UN support. B..

Think of it in basketball terms. It's like a fast break. Two weeks is huge. It's not magic although some believed in magic last election.

Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?

I think there have been studies that indicate the protection technology, body armour etc... has had a lot to do with the decrease in battlefield deaths.

A good read on the topic on the over reliance on military strength as a universal problem solver is Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism."

-spence

Read it again then. Obama says “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....
War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...

-spence

Think of it in basketball terms. It's like a fast break. Two weeks is huge. It's not magic although some believed in magic last election.

If you miss the opportunity for a fast break you run a different play.

It's still the same points for the possession.

-spence

If you miss the opportunity for a fast break you run a different play.

It's still the same points for the possession.

-spence

Good players don't miss the opportunity for the fast break!

Good players don't miss the opportunity for the fast break!

You don't break solo. Two weeks ago we'd have been going it alone...

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.


War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...I wish we were beyond your intellectual dishonesty...the self-ordained intellectuals here can barely spell, while at the same time lecturing on things like ignorance and intelligence:rotf2:




no, he speaks generally with regard to presidential power and engagment of the military and then specifically with regard to Iranian nuclear facilities, what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

??? preventative war with Iran -spence

Iran doesn't pose a "serious threat to us"...what ever happened to those talks???

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." Obama(sounds like Obama thought this one was going to be a fast break and a slam dunk):uhuh:

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...:yawn:

what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours
The situation in Iran is a hypothetical. While Iranian nukes shift the balance of power, the odds that they would be employed against Iran's neighbors or given to terrorists is probably quite remote.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.

Useless random quote snipped.


I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...:yawn:

Full Text...

(Boston Globe) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an 'Imminent' threat?)

(Candidate Obama) The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity.

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

You don't break solo. Two weeks ago we'd have been going it alone...

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence

It is remarkable. Wonder what the end game is?? or shall I say agenda.
We know why the EU cares. Oil.

There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."

Gotta luv it, JD. :D

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.
-spence

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

This is how I read it:
Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

GENBERAL COMMENT BY OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

He then goes on to give a SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Just another example of him saying one thing and doing another………..

[QUOTE=spence;847238]Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity. The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.except Libya in 2011?

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.-Spence

OBAMA-The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the "informed consent " of Congress prior to any military action.

Boehner's point: Obama White House notified Congress---but did not consult. By Lynn Sweet on March 24, 2011 11:09 AM | No Comments

WASHINGTON---House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a point--that the White House, despite their assertions, did not consult with Congress very much about the military action in Libya. Boehner and others have a number of legitimate questions about the U.S. engagement that need answering.

The Obama administration briefed members and staffers after the decision was made to attack; that's a one-way street, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck noted on Thursday in a memo he sent around. "Consulting implies one is seeking input on if and how to act. The earliest communication on this topic was last Friday, when leaders were informed of the WH plan. At that point, the plan was already in motion and the use of U.S. military assets had already been committed to other nations. ....Notification is always appreciated, but it is not a substitute for the long-respected custom of congressional consultation before committing to military action, even the kinetic kind."

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"

save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"
I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence

I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence

and you've resorted to idiocy :uhuh:

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence

40 + nations in Iraq "war" coalition under 17 UN resolutions

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

-spence

so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama

so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama
First off, let me congratulate you on actually composing yourself enough to pen a thoughtful and well constructed post. This may be precedent setting and I'm sure it didn't come easily. Hard work should be recognized and appreciated.

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe the country matters.

The Constitution certainly does appear to give the President the ability to use military force without Congressional approval as Obama says in his quote...And there's also a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes a "threat" to the US. This has been used to justify all manners of military action without Congressional approval throughout the years...and often with controversy given the situation.

In the case of Libya the UN resolution has a very limited objective but also legal legitimacy and sponsorship from a number of nations. This is the UN acting as much or more than the US acting. There also is a pretty clear threat to US interests.

While certainly not free, the US involvement in enforcing the UN Resolution isn't likely to change the funding or mission of the armed forces...assuming the action is kept within the expected scope.

I don't think you can say the same about any attack on Iran which would likely have stiff opposition from Russia and China and almost certainly escalate rapidly into a much larger conflict. So to even entertain such thoughts one would think Congressional approval would be a requirement.

So I think Obama is correct in asserting that to attack Iran would require Congressional approval. But this isn't a blanket statement on the use of US force.

And you say...

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene

Which leads me to believe you actually agree on both points.

-spence

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence


Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).

Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).

there is common sense...and then there is common Spence...common Spence enjoys twisting the truth, turning reality on it's head and justifying the unjustifiable for some odd purpose, you can't debate or deal reasonably with someone who is intellectually dishonest because they recognize no bounds of decency or decorum, reality, to them, is whatever they deem it to be at the moment and they take great pleasure in looking you straight in the eye and telling you that black is white or some shade of gray...and then mock or ridicule you for pointing out that it is, in fact, black...it makes them feel much smarter to repeatedly illustrate that they are in fact, dumber as they sneer and hold to their absurd contentions ......you only feed their sick passion when you engage..... but someone has to do it...Spence hasn't been right about anything in years...he continues his streak

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.


-spence

Apparently they wore off over night :smash:

I don't know about you guys but I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation of tomorrows speach. He's got some explaining to do.

Apparently they wore off over night :smash:

It just goes to show how special that one post really was.

-spence

I don't know about you guys but I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation of tomorrows speach. He's got some explaining to do.
I think he's waiting until tomorrow so he can reference the hand off to NATO. While frustrating, this is probably worth the political cost.

He certainly needs to clarify the mission and US involvement if he hopes to get full Congressional support. That being said, don't forget that the entire Republican caucus in the Senate has already voted in support of a no fly zone earlier this month.

The Administration may have (once again) poorly handled the domestic debate on this issue, but it's not like they're going it alone. There's quite a lot of GOP support out there.

-spence

You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence

Speaking of basketball Spence, O picked all the #1's to be in the FF

Speaking of basketball Spence, O picked all the #1's to be in the FF
That's because all the time he should have spent planning Libya went into his brackets.

Duh.

-spence

That's because all the time he should have spent planning Libya went into his brackets.

Duh.

-spence

Ummm, His picks took no thought and less courage. FAIL

You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence

Well...............let's hear them. You go first :)

You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence

actually, most experts agree, there has been quite a bit....perhaps you are in the wrong blogosphere enveloped in your own Obama solo circlejerk :)

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence


HUMANITARIAN MISSION?....not a WAR?

March 27th, 2011

Analysts are now saying the important battle will be for Surt, and that allied airstrikes are already paving the way.

Many people in Tripoli, including those supporting Colonel Qaddafi and those opposing him, said they were focused closely on the battle for Surt.


.................................................. ...
Ross Douthat asks some great questions in the NY Times today


What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued air support.

If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli, though, how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya, they have issued policy statements that include “all the right elements” — support for democracy, economic development, women’s rights, etc. According to The Los Angeles Times, they have filled what used to be Qaddafi’s prisons with “enemies of the revolution” — mostly black Africans, rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London, their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the “patriots and good Muslims” who fought American forces in Iraq.

Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels don’t need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that we’re dropping bombs on their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.

Can we really hand off this mission? Officially, this is a far more multilateral venture than was, say, the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin points out, when it comes to direct military support, this war’s coalition is “smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.” Officially, too, the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role, as NATO takes over the command. But as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman argues, the difference between a “high” United States involvement and a “low” military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.

Obama has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one week down already, is this really plausible? And anyway, how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our shoulders”?

Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.

Last week, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots that “demand more American attention than Libya.” He came up with six: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen’s Qaeda havens, post-Mubarak Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One can quibble with Goldberg’s ordering but not his broader point. While we intervene in Libya, what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil, does it make sense that Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya and Surt?

It’s clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the intervention on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States.

President Obama’s most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.

If we wanted the rebels, whoever THEY are,not knowing scares me, the no fly zone
should have started months ago when they were showing an upper hand
not wait till now as they were being driven back.
If Gaddafi doesn't go, the last state will be worse then the first.

If the plan was to get rid of Qaddafi , who isn't a threat to us, it should have been
done by targeting him rather then having all these people who
we are now supposedly trying to protect getting killed.

This whole thing with NATO, which was formed to protect each member
if attacked by Russia, is a smoke screen for Obama not taking the blame for being the bad guy.

Suddenly we are there to defend human rights, but when the Iranian people
were rebelling we did nothing to help them. At least Iran was a direct threat to
us. The whole middle east is on fire with human rights issues. Getting involved
with Libya just doesn't make sense.

This whole thing is crazy and I guess we'll find out what it is, like when Pelosi said we would know and understand about HC, after it's all done.
What a joke, whatever the out come is, the Administration will say that was the
original plan.

Let's get our own house in order first, and stop policing the world.

ouch...FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_libya_fact_check)

bad headline...should read.."how Obama's claims completely distort the facts...again"

Mission Accomplished!!! 9 years to get Saddam out????? Clinton effed up Bosnia

lots of rhetoric not alot of objective last night.

What do we the US citizen's get out of this?

Oil - no
Ally - no
Stature in the Region - no
Another Democratic being the world's police man - YES
More BS - YES

lots of rhetoric not alot of objective last night.

What do we the US citizen's get out of this?

Oil - no
Ally - no
Stature in the Region - no
Another Democratic being the world's police man - YES
More BS - YES

Europe gets the oil, we do the heavy lifting. Obama saved 250k lives.

DAMASCUS, Syria – Syrian state-run television says the Cabinet has resigned as the country sees the worst unrest in decades.

President Bashar Assad accepted the Cabinet's resignation following a meeting Tuesday.

Dont forget Yemen....
I think this is WWIII in the making.

Dont forget Yemen....
I think this is WWIII in the making.
It's been only a matter of time before the Middle East and surrounding regions totally collapsed into themselves.

Most of these countries have neither the technical resources or skill to build this into a WW caliber situation.

It's been only a matter of time before the Middle East and surrounding regions totally collapsed into themselves.

Most of these countries have neither the technical resources or skill to build this into a WW caliber situation.

and Serbia did in 1914?

My questions still remain.

Who are these rebels and who will be in control IF this thing works out?

Who is going to be the JUDGE as to which countries we go into next to
support rebellion, Obama?

RAS LANOUF, Libya – Libyan government tanks and rockets pounded rebel forces into a panicked full retreat Tuesday after an hourslong, back-and-forth battle that highlighted the superior might of Moammar Gadhafi's forces, even hobbled by international airstrikes.

No such strikes were launched during the fighting in Bin Jawwad, where rebels attempting to march on Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte ended up turning around and fleeing east under overcast skies. Some fleeing rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of international airstrikes.

This is about oil and oil only. I just want Obama to get out of this endless war he has started.


BWHAHAHAHAAA:uhuh:

Honestly, Libya and our brave forces aside, anyone know how his brackets are shaping up?

My questions still remain.

Who are these rebels and who will be in control IF this thing works out? former prisoners who are largely foreign mercenaries, al qaeda(the good al qaeda...kinda like the "good Taliban") members and the Muslim Brotherhood(the good Muslim Brotherhood, a well meaning offshoot of the bad Muslim Brotherhood)...the country should be in good hands :uhuh:
Who is going to be the JUDGE as to which countries we go into next to
support rebellion, Obama? no...Hillary........ and the UN

Watching the news last night and this is EXACTLY what I heard:

Our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, “We really do not know who these rebels are just yet”

Five minutes later I hear our UN Ambassador Susan Rice say, “We need to arm these rebels”

Our people need to get on the same page here. On one hand we are saying we need to arm these people and on the other hand we are saying we don’t know who they are or what they stand for. They look foolish and need to at least get on the same page here.

I didn’t really get Obama’s speech the other night (maybe it's me). He says we are handing this cluster over to NATO. The supreme commander of NATO is a US Soldier. We are the number one country funding NATO. NATO is nothing without us. We are taking this from our right hand and moving it to our left hand and saying we handed it off. I don’t know if he is the one who is confused or if he is trying to confuse the American people. He needs to call a spade a spade. That is the least he can do.
Not sure what happens next. If this is a humanitarian effort, what happens when Gadafi’s troops dig in around Tripoli and it comes to a standstill? If the innocent killing stops, what happens next? What’s the plan? Obama’s speech sounded like a victory speech the other night and we still have 8 innings left to play………

Here we go.
The libs loved comparing Iraq to Vietnam however there was little in common.
This on the other hand is VERY similar......

CNN) -- On a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.

"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.


and PS - I am not even going to comment on how incredibly funny this is - "I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in,"

Libyan Army pulling back hundreds of klicks, rebels advance hundreds of klicks, both in just days. Rebels (with what constitution and command?) stretch well beyond what would pass for something akin to a supply line and get chewed up. Classic swaping space for extending the opposing force beyond their capabilities.

We're all doomed. :devil2:

Warfare practiced by Poli-Sci majors? I hope O can pull this off but I remain unconvinced it will happen without the US holding the bag.

Ready. Fire. Aim.

And lets not forget who we're fighting for!

LONDON (Reuters) – Al Qaeda's most influential English-language preacher said revolts sweeping the Arab world would help rather than harm its cause by giving Islamists freed from tyranny greater scope to speak out.

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaeda's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, in an article published online on Tuesday, said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars were now freer to discuss and organize.

"Our mujahideen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.

"For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen," wrote Awlaki, an American of Yemeni origin who is believed to be hiding in southern Yemen.

He said it did not matter what sort of government succeeded Arab autocrats, as these were unlikely to be as repressive. Imagining that only a Taliban-style regime would benefit al Qaeda was "a too short term way" of looking at events.

"We do not know yet what the outcome would be (in any given country), and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction," he said.

And lets not forget who we're fighting for!

LONDON (Reuters) – Al Qaeda's most influential English-language preacher said revolts sweeping the Arab world would help rather than harm its cause by giving Islamists freed from tyranny greater scope to speak out.

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaeda's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, in an article published online on Tuesday, said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars were now freer to discuss and organize.

"Our mujahideen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.

"For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen," wrote Awlaki, an American of Yemeni origin who is believed to be hiding in southern Yemen.

He said it did not matter what sort of government succeeded Arab autocrats, as these were unlikely to be as repressive. Imagining that only a Taliban-style regime would benefit al Qaeda was "a too short term way" of looking at events.

"We do not know yet what the outcome would be (in any given country), and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction," he said.

I think these clowns would have spun it either way. If the middle east truly were to move to a more democratic region , I think it would be harder on the Taliban. Personal opinion though and I think that is a very, very long way off.

I didn’t really get Obama’s speech the other night (maybe it's me).



No, it's not you.
Like Joe Liberman said the other night,
"If your -NOT- confused, you don't understand the situation." :)

By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press Ryan Lucas, Associated Press – 1 min ago
AJDABIYA, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces recaptured a strategic oil town Wednesday and moved within striking distance of another major eastern city, nearly reversing the gains rebels made since international airstrikes began. Rebels pleaded for more help, while a U.S. official said government forces are making themselves harder to target by using civilian "battle wagons" with makeshift armaments instead of tanks.

Hmmmm, We may need to step it up a tiny bit.

At this point, who cares........just do it and get it over with. Say "We (I mean NATO) pressed the wrong button."

brilliant stuff from VDH


March 31, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Obama’s Amazing Achievements
His military intervention prompted some stunning reversals.




By bombing Libya, President Obama has accomplished some things once thought absolutely impossible in America:

(a) War-mongering liberals: Liberals are now chest-thumping about military “progress” in Libya. Even liberal television and radio commentators cite ingenious reasons why an optional, preemptive American intervention in an oil-producing Arab country, without prior congressional approval or majority public support — and at a time of soaring deficits — is well worth supporting, in a sort of “my president, right or wrong,” fashion. Apparently, liberal foreign policy is returning to the pre-Vietnam days of the hawkish “best and brightest.”

(b) Europe first: Many Americans have long complained about the opportunistic, utopian Europeans. Under the protective U.S. defense shield, they often privately urged us to deal with dangerous foreign dictators — while staying above the fray to criticize America, at the same time seeking trade advantages and positive global PR. But now the wily Obama has outwaited even the French. He has managed to shame them into acting, with a new opossum-like U.S. strategy of playing dead until finally the Europeans were exasperated — almost as if the president were warning them, “We don’t mind the Qaddafi bloodletting if you, who are much closer to it, don’t mind.” The British Guardian and French Le Monde will be too knee-deep in the Libyan war, busy chalking up Anglo-French “wins” and worrying about European oil concessions, to charge America with the usual imperialism, colonialism, and militarism. We are almost back to the 1956 world of the Suez crisis.

(c) Iraq was just a prequel to Libya: Conservatives have complained that opposition — especially in the cases of then-senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden — to George W. Bush’s antiterrorism policies and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was more partisan than principled. Obama ended that debate by showing that not only can he embrace — or, on occasion, expand — the Bush-Cheney tribunals, preventive detentions, renditions, Predator attacks, intercepts and wiretaps, and Guantanamo Bay, but he can now preemptively attack an Arab oil-exporting country without fear of Hollywood, congressional cutoffs, MoveOn.org “General Betray Us”–type ads, Cindy Sheehan on the evening news, or Checkpoint-like novels. In short, Obama has ensured that the antiwar movement will never be quite the same.

(d) Monster-in-recovery: The Qaddafi clan has been wooing Westerners through oil money and multicultural gobbledygook. In the last few years, the British released the Lockerbie bomber, a native of Libya; Saif Qaddafi, the would-be artist and scholar and the son of Col. Moammar Qaddafi, essentially bought a Ph.D. from the prestigious London School of Economics; the creepy Harvard-connected Monitor Group hired out cash-hungry “scholars” to write tributes to Qaddafi’s achievements; and Mariah Carey, 50 Cent, Beyoncé, and other entertainers earned a pile of petrodollars by crooning for the Qaddafis. Then, suddenly, Obama spoiled the fun and profits by turning Qaddafi from a rehabilitated monster back into Ronald Reagan’s old “Mad Dog of the Middle East.”

(e) Stuff happens: Many supporters of the Iraq War condemned Abu Ghraib as the poorly supervised, out-of-control prison it was. Lax American oversight resulted in the sexual humiliation of detained Iraqi insurgents. It was a deplorable episode, in which, nonetheless, no one was killed, and yet it took an enormous toll on the credibility of Bush-administration officials. But while the media were covering the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers. That was a far worse transgression than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib during Bush’s tenure — but it was apparently an incident that, in the new media climate, could legitimately be ignored. Obama made “stuff happens” an acceptable defense for those doing their best to run a war from Washington.

(f) War really is tiring: The media serially blamed a supposedly lazy Ronald Reagan for napping during military operations abroad. George W. Bush was criticized for cutting brush at his Texas ranch while soldiers fought and died in Iraq. Obama rendered all such presidential criticism mere nitpicking when he started aerial bombardment in the midst of golfing, handicapping the NCAA basketball tournament, and taking his family to Rio de Janeiro.

(g) The road to Damascus? After Bush’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, many war-weary Americans believed that we would never again get involved in a Middle East war. But now, with Obama’s preemptive bombing of Libya, giddy American interventionists are again eyeing Iran, Syria — and beyond!

In short, Obama turned America upside down when he bombed Libya — and in ways we could have scarcely imagined

Mr Hanson has a away of showing the hypocrisy, dunnhe.

a) Obama has been taking a lot of heat from the Left on Libya

b) I think Obama has shown some patience that like in Egypt might have paid off. To parlay this into playing dead is a bit o spin.

c) Where again has Obama expanded controversial Bush policies like rendition and GITMO?

d) Actually, if was Qadaffi who was ordering the bombing of civilians and not Maria Carey or Fiddy Cent.

e) Funny, I first read about this on MSNBC.COM !

f) Did RIJIMMY write this one?

g) Giddy American Interventionists have never taken an eye off of Iran.

-spence

e) Funny, I first read about this on MSNBC.COM !

f-spence

:rotf2: You crack me up Spence:rotf2:

:rotf2: You crack me up Spence:rotf2:
I'm serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, this was broken in Rolling Stone, about a squadron from the army known as the 'kill team' which went as far as taking digits from executed kids as trophies. One of the stories was a soldier threw it in a pot during a poker game.

And it was all over MSNBC on Monday.

but of course, it's all liberal bias.

so it was on MSNBC and in Rolling Stone...wow, that's practically the same level of coverage as Abu G and about 4 people saw it, most of whom were smoking weed.....I apologize for VDH :uhuh:.... did Comedy Central or Saturday Night Live do a funny skit about it or anything?...just wondering

btw..Rolling Stone completely misrepresented the story according to an embedded reporter..combination of liberal bias and too much weed

Michael Yon
29 March 2011

Seldom do I waste time with rebutting articles, and especially not from publications like Rolling Stone. Today, numerous people sent links to the latest Rolling Stone tripe. The story is titled “THE KILL TEAM, THE FULL STORY.” It should be titled: “BULL#^&#^&#^&#^&, from Rolling Stone.”

The story—not really an “article”—covers Soldiers from 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) in Afghanistan. A handful of Soldiers were accused of murder. It does in fact appear that a tiny group of rogues committed premeditated murder. I was embedded with the 5/2 SBCT and was afforded incredible access to the brigade by the Commander, Colonel Harry Tunnell, and the brigade Command Sergeant Major, Robb Prosser.
.................................

he goes on to point out the problems with the RS article, the point that VDH is making is the remarkably different handling that the mainstream media has chosen when you juxtapose this incident with Abu, one was used by the media and democrats to try to drive a president from office and soil the reputation of the entire military, the other ( far more egregious) is largely overlooked and the only difference is the party that the presidents happened to belong to....if you somehow miss the bias then there is little hope for you....

...........
Sen. Edward Kennedy "we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management''....what a patriot he was:yak6:

and the beat goes on, la da da da di, la da da da dah....

The rebels managed to take part of the oil town of Brega the day before, aided by an international air campaign, but the rocket and artillery salvos unleashed on the rebels indicates the government's offensive capabilities remain very much intact.

"When you see this, the situation is very bad. We cannot match their weapons," said Kamal Mughrabi, 64, a retired soldier who joined the rebel army. "If the planes don't come back and hit them we'll have to keep pulling back."

Rebel attempts to fire rockets and mortars against the government forces were met with aggressive counter bombardments that sent many of the rebel forces scrambling back all the way to the town of Ajdabiya, dozens of miles (kilometers) away. There did not appear to be any immediate response from the international aircraft patrolling the skies that have aided the rebels in the past.

There is a pretty interesting book entitled "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman, president/CEO of STRATFOR, a leading private intelligence organization. In his book, Friedman suggests that the goal is not to win the war (or even the hearts of the people) in the middle east. Rather, he profers an idea that the goal is to ensure instability to prevent the growth of an islamic power. IN general terms the lives lost is a small price (his words not mine) for this instability if it means we will not have to deal with the economic problems or wars that would be attributed to such a formation. Interesting thought given the lack of a realistic exit strategy to date.

"the goal" appears to be paving the way for an islamic power


I guess when you are F-ing things things up you could explain your results by claiming that your intention was to cause chaos and instability all along....could be Obama's re-election theme "WINNING!"..."TIGER BLOOD!"

Libyan Rebels: 'Nato Is Now Our Problem'

Share Comments (108)6:53am UK, Wednesday April 06, 2011

Libyan rebels have accused Nato of being too slow to act - and asked them to suspend operations unless they "do the job properly".

Rebel leader Abdel Fattah Younes has complained the alliance takes hours to respond to events on the battlefield because of an overly bureaucratic process.

He claimed the alliance's inaction was allowing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces to advance and was letting them kill people in the rebel-held city of Misrata "everyday".

He said: "Nato is moving very slowly, allowing Gaddafi forces to advance. Nato has become our problem."

Mr Younes also said if Nato wanted to lift Col Gaddafi's weeks-long siege in Misrata, it could have done it weeks ago.

Nato took over from a coalition led by the United States, Britain and France on March 31.

It puts the alliance in charge of air strikes targeting Col Gaddafi's military infrastructure as well as policing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-lacking-strike-aircraft-libya)

good grief :confused:

Mr Younes said: "One official calls another and then from the official to the head of Nato and from the head of Nato to the field commander. This takes eight hours."

Looks like the strategy is moving along well. I think Obama is playing this one perfectly...


d) Actually, if was Qadaffi who was ordering the bombing of civilians and not Maria Carey or Fiddy Cent

Considering the complexity and variability of the situation, its actually not looking all that terrible. Obama seems to have been pretty careful to not make statements or promises we can't keep, something very different from Bush.

And if the UN does impose a no fly zone in Lybia, who's going to stand behind the Lybian Govt? The Sudan??? I'm not sure the regime can survive...

While we don't want to get into a real battle, it does seem like Ghaddafi has crossed the line with his actions...they're going to squeeze him until he pops.

I think the bigger piece is that Khadaffi is now seen as damaged goods by even much of the Arab leadership.

Bush would have made some dramatic remarks about standing up for those who seek freedom, the neocons would have had a circle jerk, and then they'd do nothing.

Justification is because the Libyan government has turned to using the military against their own people without much regard. It looks like they've been bombing and shelling killing just about anyone. I've really some really gruesome stories.

As for Obama's statements, I thought they have been pretty clear on this. While the position of the Administration is that Ghaddafi should go, the legal resolution is only to protect the civilians and as such that is the direct mission.

They appear to be very mindful of the slippery slope and also the strategic situation.

And I think that's exactly the concern...another Rwanda like slaughter.

I wouldn't call this a "war"

Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh.

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring.


The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide.


-spence



I'M SHOCKED!!!

Boston Globe /Opinion /Op-ed Alan J. Kuperman

False pretense for war in Libya?


By Alan J. Kuperman
April 14, 2011

EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.

But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.

On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’

Originally Posted by JohnR ....This is what I fear will happen.

Hopefully Col Q's military and Mercs flip on him. Of course at this stage of the game even if Q is gone and the rebels take over we'll have one of 3 things happen:

1) Rebels will go all fundamentalist anyway.

2) Rebels will fall under Iranian influence and follow the pattern somewhere along option one.

3) We might have some semblance of a modern democracy that remembers help from the west.

Don't expect the latter.





Why do you believe a bunch of Sunni Arabs would fall under Iranian influence?

Huh?

Iran is most focused on neighboring states. Not sure where the joke is, unless you just took a long toke and need to giggle

-spence

-spence


I'M DOUBLE sHOCKED!!!


Clinton says Iran trying to hijack Mideast revolts

Apr 15, 4:11 PM (ET)

MATTHEW LEE

(AP) US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the US Embassy in...

BERLIN (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday accused Iran of trying to hijack democratic revolutions around the Mideast and warned Arab nations not to permit intolerance against women and religious minorities.

Clinton said Iran was clearly trying to use uprisings around the region to further its own goals and foment broader unrest while at the same time cracking down on its own reform movement.

"I think that that everyone(EXCEPT SPENCE) is aware if its efforts to exploit and even hijack what are legitimate protests. But certainly in an era of instant communication we hope that people will not be fooled by their tactics."

Triple....

April 17, 2011
Syria Heading from Bad to Worse By Neil Snyder

Typical newspaper readers and those with untrained eyes probably read past the report on Monday that Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Riad Shaqfa declared support for anti-Assad protesters in Syria. Likewise, they probably failed to grasp the significance of a report on Tuesday that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said that the protests in Syria are the result of a plot by Americans and Zionists -- that's Jewish people in general and Israeli Jews in particular.


Syria is a Muslim country, but it's not an Islamist state. Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president, is a Muslim, but he's not a Sharia law aficionado. Even so, he has allowed Hamas, Hezb'allah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other radical Islamist groups to set up field headquarters in Damascus, Syria's capital. Syria is a resource-poor country and a country that is still technically at war with Israel. Assad thinks that he's using these Islamist groups as leverage to maintain influence in Lebanon and to keep pressure on Israel, but the worm has turned. Iran has assumed the leadership position in the dark world of radical Islam, and Iran is using these and other Islamist groups to dislodge non-Islamist Arab leaders -- including Bashar al-Assad -- throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Under the best of circumstances, Islamists can't be trusted. Lying is as natural to them as breathing is to normal humans. They don't even trust each other, and if it were not for the fact that they view Israel as their common enemy, they would fight among themselves until the bitter end. Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, knows these things, and still he opened his arms to radical Islamists, believing as he does that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


Iran is a game changer. The Iranians came to the party with a strong military, oil, money to burn (and radical Islamists love money), and a lust for transforming the world into a caliphate under Sharia law. From the radical Islamist groups' perspective, it makes perfect sense to dump Assad and embrace Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


That explains what's happening in Syria, but what about the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman's remark about Americans and Zionists? Does he honestly believe that these groups are responsible for the unrest in Syria? The answer is a resounding "no." Why? It's because Iran is stoking the fires in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria. From Iran's perspective, Assad was a good partner as long as radical Islamist splinter groups were relatively weak, but when they became stronger and more beholden to Iran, ditching Assad was a no-brainer.

Looks like Ghadafi won't last long now...

Libyan Rebels Reportedly Within 2 Miles Of Tripoli's Center | FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/21/explosions-rock-tripoli-amid-reports-rebel-advances-in-capital-116547133/)

Perhaps shock and awe isn't always the best solution.

Who are the rebels again?

-spence

Looks like Ghadafi won't last long now...

-spence

I hope so. Still plenty of time to screw it up. Understand that while Tripoli is a center of gravity it is not THE only center of gravity. Area is very tribal and still plenty of time for a cluster bleep.


Perhaps shock and awe isn't always the best solution.
-spence

Don't be dumb please. I realize you have left a lot of room open for "context" - we expect better even from you than that.

You do realize that this may be the worst managed "coalition" of all time, right? The Coalition of the Willowy. From the massive material support of the individual Euronations. 4 planes here, 5 there, 6 but only on Tuesdays from blank country, Occasional tepid Arab support we'll send some planes, no we won't, maybe we will. Some nations flat out. Some nations opening and closing bases for use. Once (semi)self reliant nations wiping out their annual defense budgets.

France and UK on a weapon sales demo. Many nations using up all of their weapons reserves (though this may be good now that the nations have run out of munitions they are less likely to attack Lichtenstein).

This has been an entire Clusterbleep of stoopid proportion. Maybe the only good thing is that we have a better understanding of how badly our "Partner" nations have crippled themselves over the past 2 decades at the alter of social programs.

The parallels between today and the early 20th century are shocking, except the socialists wield more influence today.


Who are the rebels again?
-spence

Hopefully people that can build something good

Don't be dumb please. I realize you have left a lot of room open for "context" - we expect better even from you than that.
I think you misunderstood my comment.

The point being that a solid lean into an opponent at times is better than a sharp blow. This may have been a gamble, but one that has potential to pay off. The US investment is relatively small, but the EU who has more to gain short-term couldn't have done this on their own.

Surprising how the GOP has been pretty quiet eh?

-spence

Do your really think that this was a solid lean? Really? It was anything but. It was a case where fortune happens to award the clumsy and impotent. Had this been anyone other than Quadafi the rebels would have been crushed months ago.

This is a blind squirrel = occasional nut. A half as$ed effort that we'll be lucky if it pays off.

probably prudent to wait till you have all the facts too....oh, I forgot...we're talking Spence...

Battle for Tripoli not yet over as Gaddafi loyalists strike back - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/world-leaders-call-on-gaddafi-to-surrender-libyan-rebels-secure-most-of-tripoli/2011/08/22/gIQAN4wyVJ_print.html)

hey Spence...I hope you've seen a doctor because I'm sure that thing has lasted much longer than 4 hours at this point :uhuh:

probably prudent to wait till you have all the facts too....oh, I forgot...we're talking Spence...
He could do like you and whenever he's blatantly incorrect, just change the subject by making (what he thinks) is a unique quip.

He could do like you and whenever he's blatantly incorrect, just change the subject by making (what he thinks) is a unique quip.

Is this like a typical Spence-type charge, statement or claim without any evidence to back it up?

We already know what Spence does when he is blatantly incorrect or asked a question whose answer he knows will prove him blatantly incorrect...he just ignores it and skips over to another thread with more "most economists agree, and most Americans think and Obama is exactly like Reagan except for the tan"

"most economists agree, and most Americans think and Obama is exactly like Reagan except for the tan"

:rotf2:

We already know what Spence does when he is blatantly incorrect or asked a question whose answer he knows will prove him blatantly incorrect...he just ignores it and skips over to another thread with more "most economists agree, and most Americans think and Obama is exactly like Reagan except for the tan"
We all know? You should cite some examples...

-spence

Do your really think that this was a solid lean? Really? It was anything but. It was a case where fortune happens to award the clumsy and impotent. Had this been anyone other than Quadafi the rebels would have been crushed months ago.

This is a blind squirrel = occasional nut. A half as$ed effort that we'll be lucky if it pays off.
While the formation of the coalition was a little clumsy, it would look as though NATO did a good job of ramping up support at the right pace to let the rebels gain momentum and establish relationships with the right people.

This wasn't dumb luck...it seems as though it was quite calculated.

-spence

While the formation of the coalition was a little clumsy, it would look as though NATO did a good job of ramping up support at the right pace to let the rebels gain momentum and establish relationships with the right people.

This wasn't dumb luck...it seems as though it was quite calculated.

-spence

That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

Not really.... some interesting points in here...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_HELPING_THE_REBELS?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-23-06-55-06

Not really.... some interesting points in here...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_HELPING_THE_REBELS?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-23-06-55-06

You're missing the point.

Whats the point? It is ridiculous that NATO's support wasn't critical to the rebels sucess? I think w/o NATO, if they had suceeded, that would have been luck...

I'm still not in agreement with our involvement, but when given lemons, make ghadafi-aide I guess...

Interesting article.

Libyan rebels break into Gaddafi's secret underground tunnels | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030012/Libyan-rebels-break-Gaddafis-secret-underground-tunnels.html)

WTH these kids shooting at. WTF is that gun on the back of the pickup :rotf2: