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

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?

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.

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

-spence

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

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.

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?????????

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

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

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.

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.

diplomatic immunity of a sort
 

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

Quasi?

-spence

Do you think US troops haven't ever participated in UN and NATO actions before?

Huh?

-spence

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

-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

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

Another huh?

-spence

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...pt=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.

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.

Quasi
 

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: