PDA

View Full Version : Crazy photos coming out of Libya


Chris
03-15-2011, 06:26 PM
Crazy photos coming out of Libya

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/libyas-escalating-conflict/100021/

Warning - some of these are very graphic

Tombstone RJ
03-15-2011, 06:33 PM
There's nothing like destroying your own country in order to save it...

El Minion
03-15-2011, 06:41 PM
Shocking Photos and Video From Libya (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-22/libya-protests-shocking-photos-and-video/)

These are “EXTREMELY GRAPHIC,” as the warnings often say, but given their matter of historical importance, they are now evidence to a brutal crackdown. Please continue viewing this post with caution. The most graphic photos and videos are posted on page two.

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 06:44 PM
Wow those rebels haven't a chance. Without USA, Germany, Russia, China deciding to get involved those rebels are dust. Look at them? I haven't been trained but wouldn't be stupid enough to fire off ammunition with no chance of hitting a jet. It's a waste. Laying on your back resting AA gun on foot? Sounds like a way to kill yourself or a fellow rebel to me.

I really can't say if we should have finished Gaddafi off. Obama has shown his weakness in dealing with it, but maybe that was his plan on this one so he could let Saudis put troops in Bahrian. We really never know the inside dealing of a white house.

For sure though Bush would have led they way, got on board with UK and France, and pushed through a no fly zone. Also though Bush probably also would have let Saudis put troops in Bahrain. Clearly the usa will say what leaders get to say and what ones they will let fall.

The revolution in Libya looks to be a long drawn out blood bath. But without supply the rebels will fall.

What happens if Venezula decides to supply the govt forces? Someone on the radio said Chavez said he would give him any support he needs. He didn't say military but read between the lines.

Archer81
03-15-2011, 06:54 PM
For sure though Bush would have led they way, got on board with UK and France, and pushed through a no fly zone. Also though Bush probably also would have let Saudis put troops in Bahrain. Clearly the usa will say what leaders get to say and what ones they will let fall.


I tend to agree. The UN or NATO would have applied a nofly zone over Libyan rebel positions and gave Qadafi/Khadaffi/Whateverthe**** an ultimatum. Step down or be removed. Our media would hate it, and if representative government (republic or democracy) is the stated aim of US foreign policy this is a chance to take out a major sponsor of terror and remove a burr from the region. The longer this drags on, the higher the chance of radical elements gaining influence or taking the country outright.

:Broncos:

gyldenlove
03-15-2011, 07:00 PM
Wow those rebels haven't a chance. Without USA, Germany, Russia, China deciding to get involved those rebels are dust. Look at them? I haven't been trained but wouldn't be stupid enough to fire off ammunition with no chance of hitting a jet. It's a waste. Laying on your back resting AA gun on foot? Sounds like a way to kill yourself or a fellow rebel to me.

I really can't say if we should have finished Gaddafi off. Obama has shown his weakness in dealing with it, but maybe that was his plan on this one so he could let Saudis put troops in Bahrian. We really never know the inside dealing of a white house.

For sure though Bush would have led they way, got on board with UK and France, and pushed through a no fly zone. Also though Bush probably also would have let Saudis put troops in Bahrain. Clearly the usa will say what leaders get to say and what ones they will let fall.

The revolution in Libya looks to be a long drawn out blood bath. But without supply the rebels will fall.

What happens if Venezula decides to supply the govt forces? Someone on the radio said Chavez said he would give him any support he needs. He didn't say military but read between the lines.

I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Once the smoke cleared they could clean up the rubble, send in repair crews to fix the oil wells like they did in kuwait and help get rid of the existing military and set up a police force.

Inkana7
03-15-2011, 07:06 PM
I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Once the smoke cleared they could clean up the rubble, send in repair crews to fix the oil wells like they did in kuwait and help get rid of the existing military and set up a police force.

Easy as pie! Just like Iraq!

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 07:07 PM
I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Once the smoke cleared they could clean up the rubble, send in repair crews to fix the oil wells like they did in kuwait and help get rid of the existing military and set up a police force.

There is only one reason. Obama decided he didn't want to do it. With tepid support from USA Germany was motivated to squash it. Things like this always have some resistance, from Russia, Germany, China, and usually France. Not this time though France acted strongest of all.

I think Bush would have asked CIA, what would make Libya stable fastest, then probably done that. But then again Bush is sort of predictable that he will say once we support in one country, we show same values in the neighboring country.

I don't want to come out right now and say Obama blew it. But I will say he acted in a weak way. Perhaps though that was his intention to have the no fly zone not happen without supporting Gaddaffi.

The rebels are in trouble because now world focused on Japan and revolution in yesterdays news.

One question are most Obama supporters digging how he handled this? Or are you as confused as the rest of us are as to what he wants to happen in Libya?

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 07:10 PM
With the Arab League supporting intervention it's possible Obama could have push the no fly zone, supported rebels from the air, and then had arab league peacekeepers go in when it was over.

I think he just decided he was scared of the whole deal. Obama sort of in over his head i think.

Tim
03-15-2011, 07:12 PM
rebels and libyan's go to the same hospitals? Seems stupid

TheReverend
03-15-2011, 07:21 PM
I refuse to comment until Gaffney explains to me how this is the US's fault

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 07:28 PM
rebels and libyan's go to the same hospitals? Seems stupid

Just how doctors do business.

gyldenlove
03-15-2011, 07:30 PM
Easy as pie! Just like Iraq!

The difference here is that the large majority of the country wants to get rid of the dictator and are actively trying to do so, we don't have to invade to achieve anything here, we just have to give them a helping hand, very few foreign lives would be lost and we could leave them to pick up most of the pieces afterwards.

STBumpkin
03-15-2011, 08:16 PM
I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Once the smoke cleared they could clean up the rubble, send in repair crews to fix the oil wells like they did in kuwait and help get rid of the existing military and set up a police force.

It's easy to say a CSG (carrier strike group) can come in to save the day when you don't know the responsibilities and commitments of the navy. We are stretched thin as it is. The govt budget cuts don't only concern civilian govt employees. We are getting slashed like a M***** F*****. We can barely fly training missions because our fuel budget is cut and you want us to increase our operational tempo? If we keep going as is we will be a husk of broken planes and exhausted aircrew. Don't commit us because you're sad about the pics you see on TV.

strafen
03-15-2011, 08:28 PM
That's a tough part of the world. People killing themselves for a cause.
It's hard to imagine these things can still happen in today's world...

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 09:12 PM
It's easy to say a CSG (carrier strike group) can come in to save the day when you don't know the responsibilities and commitments of the navy. We are stretched thin as it is. The govt budget cuts don't only concern civilian govt employees. We are getting slashed like a M***** ******. We can barely fly training missions because our fuel budget is cut and you want us to increase our operational tempo? If we keep going as is we will be a husk of broken planes and exhausted aircrew. Don't commit us because you're sad about the pics you see on TV.

Carrier doesn't have enough planes. But NATO or anyone suggesting that is the problem is not being honest. NATO has Italian and French air bases they could launch from. The USA could already have flown a bunch of planes into Italy and be ready to go had they wanted to do it.

But I agree telling some carriers to just mosey over there and take care of it wouldn't probably be a smart way to do it.

Cmon though. Anyone who argues that France alone couldn't go in there and shoot down those jets, bomb his ammo dumps, hell maybe even drop one right on his ass, is kidding themselves.

France, Italy, could both kick the crap out of Lybia's Airforce.

STBumpkin
03-15-2011, 09:30 PM
Carrier doesn't have enough planes. But NATO or anyone suggesting that is the problem is not being honest. NATO has Italian and French air bases they could launch from. The USA could already have flown a bunch of planes into Italy and be ready to go had they wanted to do it.

But I agree telling some carriers to just mosey over there and take care of it wouldn't probably be a smart way to do it.

Cmon though. Anyone who argues that France alone couldn't go in there and shoot down those jets, bomb his ammo dumps, hell maybe even drop one right on his ass, is kidding themselves.

France, Italy, could both kick the crap out of Lybia's Airforce.

France and Italy probably (but not certainly) could act but won't. The Air Force is hardly better equipped than the Navy. The armed forces of the US are stretched to their limit. There is a reason we pulled/are pulling out of Iraq. It's because we can no longer be effective in both Iraq and Afghanistan, period. Don't get me wrong, we can and will respond to a threat on our nation's integrity decisively, but we have forces in Africa, Europe, South America and Asia that are all crying for assets. We can't be expected to solve all the worlds problems at the beck and call of everyone who has a cause. If we were to receive more funding, several top projects (to repair or replace necessary equipment) wouldn't have been dropped recently. The military needs money if we're going to maintain our supremacy. The American population, mirrored by the current administration, is unwilling to provide that money.

mkporter
03-15-2011, 11:14 PM
There is only one reason. Obama decided he didn't want to do it. With tepid support from USA Germany was motivated to squash it. Things like this always have some resistance, from Russia, Germany, China, and usually France. Not this time though France acted strongest of all.

I think Bush would have asked CIA, what would make Libya stable fastest, then probably done that. But then again Bush is sort of predictable that he will say once we support in one country, we show same values in the neighboring country.

I don't want to come out right now and say Obama blew it. But I will say he acted in a weak way. Perhaps though that was his intention to have the no fly zone not happen without supporting Gaddaffi.

The rebels are in trouble because now world focused on Japan and revolution in yesterdays news.

One question are most Obama supporters digging how he handled this? Or are you as confused as the rest of us are as to what he wants to happen in Libya?

The problem we have with leading the way is how it plays with the rest of the region. The US is already pretty well disliked as much of the region sees us imposing our will on them (iraq and afghanistan), or supporting oppressive regimes in the name of stability (egypt, suadi arabia, etc). Providing support to the rebels can actually hurt their cause by allowing their opponents to cast their movement as driven by imperialistic western forces. That can turn popular support the other direction, and frequently does.

Every time you see a protest anywhere in the region, the local governments PR response is to declare that the protests have been stirred up by foreigners, and the foreign media. This rhetoric always shows up in Iran, and was prominent in the recent developments in Egypt and Libya as well. The reality is that our best move is probably to sit on the sidelines, and play our part in internationally agreed on actions, ideally with Arab support.

Decades of middle eastern policy promoting stability instead of democracy has tied our hands here. I'm not saying stability wasn't in our best interest, but it creates a difficult situation for us, now. As an Obama supporter, I feel he's played the hand he has. Treading lightly is the order of the day, and that's what we've done. Treading lightly is not really our thing, so it feels kinda weird. Ultimately, this is a Libyan matter, and a matter for the peoples of the middle east. As these oppressive regimes fall, I hope we reach out to the democratic institutions that replace them, and encourage them to embrace the values we care about (freedom, etc).

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 11:26 PM
The problem we have with leading the way is how it plays with the rest of the region. The US is already pretty well disliked as much of the region sees us imposing our will on them (iraq and afghanistan), or supporting oppressive regimes in the name of stability (egypt, suadi arabia, etc). Providing support to the rebels can actually hurt their cause by allowing their opponents to cast their movement as driven by imperialistic western forces. That can turn popular support the other direction, and frequently does.

Every time you see a protest anywhere in the region, the local governments PR response is to declare that the protests have been stirred up by foreigners, and the foreign media. This rhetoric always shows up in Iran, and was prominent in the recent developments in Egypt and Libya as well. The reality is that our best move is probably to sit on the sidelines, and play our part in internationally agreed on actions, ideally with Arab support.

Decades of middle eastern policy promoting stability instead of democracy has tied our hands here. I'm not saying stability wasn't in our best interest, but it creates a difficult situation for us, now. As an Obama supporter, I feel he's played the hand he has. Treading lightly is the order of the day, and that's what we've done. Treading lightly is not really our thing, so it feels kinda weird. Ultimately, this is a Libyan matter, and a matter for the peoples of the middle east. As these oppressive regimes fall, I hope we reach out to the democratic institutions that replace them, and encourage them to embrace the values we care about (freedom, etc).

Arab league is asking for a no fly zone, the rebels on the ground pleading for it. Even Syria is backing it. Only really Germany, China, Iran, Russia are coming out against it.

If it is a matter for the people then why did Obama ok the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. I'm not saying I know what is best, or that it's a mistake yet. I'm only saying that Obama's signals are very confusing and remind me of a President not quite sure what he should do.

He talked tough, now seems to be backing down. I will keep an open mind but I think he may be blowing it.

mkporter
03-16-2011, 12:20 AM
Arab league is asking for a no fly zone, the rebels on the ground pleading for it. Even Syria is backing it. Only really Germany, China, Iran, Russia are coming out against it.

If it is a matter for the people then why did Obama ok the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. I'm not saying I know what is best, or that it's a mistake yet. I'm only saying that Obama's signals are very confusing and remind me of a President not quite sure what he should do.

He talked tough, now seems to be backing down. I will keep an open mind but I think he may be blowing it.

The Saudi's didn't ask our permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by Obama "okaying the invasion." His administration only went as far as saying that they didn't believe the troops moving into Bahrain constituted an invasion. That is not the same as approving it. The Obama administration stressed that the protesters in Bahrain should be heard and that the kingdom should address their concerns through political dialogue and not suppression. Pretty much their standard response for the mideast now. The Saudi's are fairly pissed with Obama for not supporting Mubarak, and for encouraging countries to respect the voice of their protesting populace. Given how tightly coupled we are to the Saudis, this isn't insignificant.

Obama's style is to be deliberative, and generally pragmatic, sometimes to a fault. I'd prefer it if he did a little more leading, as he has the capacity to be inspirational and motivating. I'd rather he err on the deliberative side, however, as we have enough **** on our plate to deal with right now.

cutthemdown
03-16-2011, 12:40 AM
The Saudi's didn't ask our permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by Obama "okaying the invasion." His administration only went as far as saying that they didn't believe the troops moving into Bahrain constituted an invasion. That is not the same as approving it. The Obama administration stressed that the protesters in Bahrain should be heard and that the kingdom should address their concerns through political dialogue and not suppression. Pretty much their standard response for the mideast now. The Saudi's are fairly pissed with Obama for not supporting Mubarak, and for encouraging countries to respect the voice of their protesting populace. Given how tightly coupled we are to the Saudis, this isn't insignificant.

Obama's style is to be deliberative, and generally pragmatic, sometimes to a fault. I'd prefer it if he did a little more leading, as he has the capacity to be inspirational and motivating. I'd rather he err on the deliberative side, however, as we have enough **** on our plate to deal with right now.

IMO when it comes to reading between the lines, the USA statement and response to the Saudis putting 2000 troops into Bahrian was a tactic endorsement of the plan. In fact even though it is said they didn't ask permission, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I think Obama underestimated what letting Mubarak fall would lead to. Now he wants to stop the flood gates because he is sort of afraid of Shia uprisings in Sunni dominated monarchy's that have been American puppets for yrs.

If I was President I would endorse the no fly zone, but then say America can only put in like 40 planes. Make the Saudis, French, Syrians, UK, anyone in Arab League with an airforce etc etc, Italy, Germany. The countries in the region to come up with the rest.

I'm not saying USA does it, pays for it all. I think if Obama wanted he get a big coalition on this one. It's not because we would have to go alone, it's because he wants the revolutions to help.

elsid13
03-16-2011, 02:32 AM
I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Once the smoke cleared they could clean up the rubble, send in repair crews to fix the oil wells like they did in kuwait and help get rid of the existing military and set up a police force.

It far as easy as you make it out to be. SECDEF Gates testimony in front of the SACs explained why it is difficult and could be deadly for US and NATO forces.

To effectively enforce you are talking about massive logistics effort to reposition assets into the region and to sustain them to start. Then a 2 to 3 week air campaign to suppress Libyan air forces, C3 capabilities, anti -ship and air units and navy. After that you would need 200-300 aircraft (from fighters, AWACS, refuelers, SARS) to maintain 24 X 7 cap.

Tombstone RJ
03-16-2011, 08:34 AM
Hey Barry, how's Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton working for you now? What a joke this administration is.

The UN is a joke and the EU is a joke. Again, this is a trouble spot in Europes back yard and they aren't doing anything but standing around and watching. Why can't the EU enforce a no fly zone over Libya?

gtown
03-16-2011, 09:07 AM
Hey Barry, how's Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton working for you now? What a joke this administration is.

The UN is a joke and the EU is a joke. Again, this is a trouble spot in Europes back yard and they aren't doing anything but standing around and watching. Why can't the EU enforce a no fly zone over Libya?


Simple, mom (Europe) wants dad (US) to do the spanking. The only thing mom is gonna do is make a big fuss.

This is actually a test to see if Europe has the balls to back up their rhetoric, which they don't. Germany is a pacificist country now given its history, the UK has a fiscal crisis which has sapped the strength of its military, and France and Italy are unwilling to get their hands dirty.

HAT
03-16-2011, 09:09 AM
The American population, mirrored by the current administration, is unwilling to provide that money.

Not to worry....We will have a new administration soon. Thanks for all you do.

Rigs11
03-16-2011, 09:16 AM
Hey Barry, how's Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton working for you now? What a joke this administration is.

The UN is a joke and the EU is a joke. Again, this is a trouble spot in Europes back yard and they aren't doing anything but standing around and watching. Why can't the EU enforce a no fly zone over Libya?

so quick to jump the gun. obviously a republican. too many rambo movies.do you know anything about the rebels that are fighting Gaddafi?i thought you guys were all about jobs and reducing the deficit? What gives?

bendog
03-16-2011, 09:33 AM
We'll be paying for troops in Iraq for at least another decade. **** the ME

lostknight
03-16-2011, 10:02 AM
I am glad to see that our president has taken such a great stand in defense of freedom, and for democracy for people who are under foot of a dictator. It's positively Rooseveltian how quickly we defended people being massacred by a racist bigot. I am so glad that he took time out from improving his golf game to...

... wait... what?

Honestly, how this country has handled this, the lack of leadership, the lack of even trying to build a consensus after the Arab League handed it to Obama on a platter is disgusting.

bendog
03-16-2011, 10:04 AM
after all, iraq and afghanistan are working out swimmingly.

speaking of crazy photos.

http://www.google.com/images?q=injured+us+soldiers+pictures&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&oe=utf8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=t-2ATYCfGoGz0QGl4fXyCA&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1003&bih=567

Rigs11
03-16-2011, 10:08 AM
Anyone care to provide a list of countries that are currently under dictators that lostknight is not bashing the president about? anyone?

fdf
03-16-2011, 10:15 AM
I don't get why NATO have been dragging their knuckles on this one, they had a country trying to throw off an oppressor, it is an oil producing country to boot, all they had to do was enforce a no fly zone, something a single carrier group could easily do as well as blockade all harbors, something that is easy to do considering the libyan navy.

Some NATO members have oil supplies that come from Ghaddafi controlled areas (Spain and others). Some have oil supplies that come from rebel controlled areas. They all have their fingers in the air worrying they might support the loser and lose their oil. But half of NATO leans one way and half the other. You can predict where a NATO country's oil comes from by how aggressive they have talked about dumping Ghaddafi. So NATO will do nothing as an entity until it becomes clear who is going to win.

Russia, OTOH, loves the chaos. Drives up oil prices and makes Europe even more dependent on Russia for oil.

China will hold back until things are more clear. If it looks like a rebel victory is more likely than not, they will pile in on the side of the rebels--hoping that the rebels will rewrite the oil leases to give most of their output to China.

The US has much less dog in this fight--we don't use a lot of Libyan oil. Obama has been pathetic--you don't go around talking tough and then do nothing. If you're going to do nothing (my preferred position), then shut your mouth.

Tombstone RJ
03-16-2011, 10:16 AM
so quick to jump the gun. obviously a republican. too many rambo movies.do you know anything about the rebels that are fighting Gaddafi?i thought you guys were all about jobs and reducing the deficit? What gives?

You're the one jumping the gun, I'm not a republican. I'm talking about enforcing a no fly zone, not putting troops on the ground. The EU could enforce a no fly zone in order to insure the crises doesnt escalate.

Rigs11
03-16-2011, 10:23 AM
You're the one jumping the gun, I'm not a republican. I'm talking about enforcing a no fly zone, not putting troops on the ground. The EU could enforce a no fly zone in order to insure the crises doesnt escalate.

a no fly zone requires the anti aircraft to be knocked out first. Are you willing to take a chance on some of our planes being shot down and possible capture of our troops. how about cost of enforcing this? Are you willing to pony up some extra tax dollars to help pay for this?

Tombstone RJ
03-16-2011, 10:27 AM
a no fly zone requires the anti aircraft to be knocked out first. Are you willing to take a chance on some of our planes being shot down and possible capture of our troops. how about cost of enforcing this? Are you willing to pony up some extra tax dollars to help pay for this?

I want the "leadership" of this country to encourage the EU to do something, like enforce a no fly zone. The US can't do everything. This takes diplomacy, something the current admin seriously lacks.

Rigs11
03-16-2011, 10:28 AM
I want the "leadership" of this country to encourage the EU to do something, like enforce a no fly zone. The US can't do everything. This takes diplomacy, something the current admin seriously lacks.Answer the questions Claire.

Tombstone RJ
03-16-2011, 10:29 AM
Answer the questions Claire.

I did sweety.

Chris
03-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Great piece on "Obama's Last Chance to Act"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-15/obamas-last-chance-on-libya?cid=bsa:relatedstories2:3

Archer81
03-16-2011, 10:56 AM
I want the "leadership" of this country to encourage the EU to do something, like enforce a no fly zone. The US can't do everything. This takes diplomacy, something the current admin seriously lacks.


I do not believe the EU has a unified military command structure. I dont even think they use the same equipment. You would think with northern Africa that close to Europe they would seek to take a more active role.

But then again, I thought the US would do the same thing.

:Broncos:

bronco militia
03-16-2011, 10:58 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110311/i/r1656191174.jpg?x=400&y=280&q=85&sig=0.zriyZx1ycpJQQaanksbQ--

bendog
03-16-2011, 10:59 AM
lOOKING for womd? (-:

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 11:03 AM
I do not believe the EU has a unified military command structure. I dont even think they use the same equipment. You would think with northern Africa that close to Europe they would seek to take a more active role.

But then again, I thought the US would do the same thing.

:Broncos:

Why is this? The US has literally no stake in Libya. This is not a conflict initiated by us, nor is it one that we really have any business being involved in, besides the fact that Libya is ruled by an insane dictator. This Cold War mentality of the USA kicking in the door of any country we want just 'cause we don't like what's going on in it just will not do in the 21st Century. It's the mentality that led to our armed forces being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US intervention in Libya is simply not justified, nor really feasible at this time. It would involve a massive logistical effort that our stretched-thin military would be hard-pressed to carry out. If a NFZ is implemented, what if the rebellion still fails?

Chris
03-16-2011, 11:11 AM
I think we have a stake because what happens in Libya really determines the course of this mini middle-east revolution and consequently the future of the entire region.

The hesitation is partly because we don't know what that future will be but it's their best chance at democratic, productive societies. As it stands they're breeding grounds for terrorism and anti-americanism as an excuse for the terrible situations imposed on them by their autocratic leaders.

bronco militia
03-16-2011, 11:18 AM
lOOKING for womd? (-:

obama sent that guy to look for leadership

bendog
03-16-2011, 11:22 AM
I don't understand why anyone would expect a democracy in Libya to be any different from the one in Iran. Any muslim maj country (shiaa or sunni) is going to have clerics involved in governing, just as in Pak and Iran. Iraq doesn't have a democracy so much as a shiaa maj and a sunni minority that lost a civil war and a US occupation. The House of Saud goes under and we're paying 6dollars for a gallon of gas.

They hate us as much as they hate their own despots.

bendog
03-16-2011, 11:30 AM
obama sent that guy to look for leadership

I'm not a great fan of Obama's but he's hardly the only one thinking that getting involved in Libya is a bad idea. I think he's trying to figure out how to get the hell out of afghan, and he knows we're qWagmired in Iraq for at least a decade. And we're broke.

And from what I've seen, the only people here who are leading the charge for a no fly are republicans running for office.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5900970&c=POL&s=TOP

Kaddafi's using helicopters, tanks and artillary. A no fly zone is not going to do anything about the latter two, but I'd be willing to guess the neoconservatives who are too old or too rich to have their kids serve won't be satisfied until we're bombing the tanks and artillary too.

PS, I agree with Chris, but I don't really think the US has any power to effect what govt would arise out of a toppling of Khadafi.

bronco militia
03-16-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm not a great fan of Obama's but he's hardly the only one thinking that getting involved in Libya is a bad idea. I think he's trying to figure out how to get the hell out of afghan, and he knows we're qWagmired in Iraq for at least a decade. And we're broke.

And from what I've seen, the only people here who are leading the charge for a no fly are republicans running for office.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5900970&c=POL&s=TOP

Kaddafi's using helicopters, tanks and artillary. A no fly zone is not going to do anything about the latter two, but I'd be willing to guess the neoconservatives who are too old or too rich to have their kids serve won't be satisfied until we're bombing the tanks and artillary too.

PS, I agree with Chris, but I don't really think the US has any power to effect what govt would arise out of a toppling of Khadafi.

or he said, "**** it. lets go to Rio for the week" :thumbsup:

bendog
03-16-2011, 12:50 PM
I thought he went to Hawaii and Michelle and the girls to spain.

Seriously, it sucks for those poor bastards. But, we're nation building in three countries, one from Clinton and two from W, right now, and none of them are really working out.

WolfpackGuy
03-16-2011, 12:57 PM
Gadaffi or al Qaeda?

Looks like the world leaders chose Gadaffi...

Chris
03-16-2011, 08:42 PM
Gadaffi or al Qaeda?

Looks like the world leaders chose Gadaffi...

Hogwash. Gadaffi is much more of a terror sponsor than Sadam ever was. I can't believe Obama is sitting on his ass with this one. Talk about a complete failure of leadership.

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 09:20 PM
Hogwash. Gadaffi is much more of a terror sponsor than Sadam ever was. I can't believe Obama is sitting on his ass with this one. Talk about a complete failure of leadership.

Libya is not on the State Department's list of states that support Terror, and Gaddafi is actually pretty anti-terrorism.

So no.

~Crash~
03-16-2011, 09:24 PM
Easy as pie! Just like Iraq!

yep and see what happened when bush left office! they stopped fighting . Democrats kept that war going with the not supporting the war and wanting to pull out . they empowered the enemy! no telling how many American men lost the life's to that **** ! then when in office what did they do ? all the pull out talk ended rather quickly... politics

Inkana7
03-16-2011, 09:26 PM
yep and see what happened when bush left office! they stopped fighting . Democrats kept that war going with the not supporting the war and wanting to pull out . they empowered the enemy! no telling how many American men lost the life's to that **** ! then when in office what did they do ? all the pull out talk ended rather quickly... politics


Last US combat troops leave Iraq

Operations officially end two weeks ahead of Barack Obama's deadline, leaving 56,000 service personnel in the country


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/iraq-last-combat-troops-leave

Tombstone RJ
03-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Libya is not on the State Department's list of states that support Terror, and Gaddafi is actually pretty anti-terrorism.

So no.

Uh, not really broseff. Libya did sponsor terrorism (ever hear of the Pan Am Flight Lockerbie bombing, financed by Libya?) but Gadaffi backed away after the invasion of Iraq, and basically said he wasn't going to have anything to do with terrorists, which was a good "pragmatic" move on his part.

But he can always change his mind...

lostknight
03-17-2011, 12:16 PM
Iraq's been over since the surge.

I despise how we are now saber-rattling with troops on the ground. If Obama had just shown leadership with a no-fly zone once Libya started bombing their own people, it would have never come to this.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 12:17 PM
Libya Threatens Retaliation as U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes


Published March 17, 2011

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/397/224/ObamaClintonLibya.jpg


Libya's defense ministry warned Thursday that any military action against the African nation resulting from a possible U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures will be met with retaliatory strikes on air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean region.




That's leader**** for you.

Tombstone RJ
03-17-2011, 12:59 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that Hillary is not going to be the Secretary of State anymore after her first term. She's already burned out.

Who ya gonna get now Barra??

Meck77
03-17-2011, 01:09 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that Hillary is not going to be the Secretary of State anymore after her first term. She's already burned out.

Who ya gonna get now Barra??

She said she wouldn't even want to be president. Things must really big f'ed up for her to say that.

Chris
03-17-2011, 01:14 PM
Libya Threatens Retaliation as U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes


Published March 17, 2011

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/397/224/ObamaClintonLibya.jpg


Libya's defense ministry warned Thursday that any military action against the African nation resulting from a possible U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures will be met with retaliatory strikes on air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean region.




That's leader**** for you.

UN authorisation? That's their bull**** way of saying "We're going to pretend we tried and let the Chinese and Russians veto it." They could get unanimous support in Nato if they wanted, where neither of those countries are involved.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-17-2011, 01:14 PM
She said she wouldn't even want to be president. Things must really big f'ed up for her to say that.

Maybe we should just be thankful she said it and leave it at that. :giggle:

Gort
03-17-2011, 01:16 PM
Libya is not on the State Department's list of states that support Terror, and Gaddafi is actually pretty anti-terrorism.

So no.

did you hurt your back?

the contortions you're undergoing to somehow spin this in Obama's favor are remarkable.

we all understand that there are no easy decisions to make when it comes to that part of the world. that's why we need to elect grownups to office.

what we've got now are amateurs who can't make up their minds about what to do. they literally have no clue.

and it's not enough to just vote "present" as Obama did during his time in the IL statehouse and the US Senate. make a decision and act on it (hopefully the right decision).

i despise Hillary as much as any conservative, but i have to give her some amount of credit for recognizing how amateurish our current administration truly is.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/

Gaddafi chose the right time to squash the rebels. now that March Madness is underway, Obama's attention will be focused on that for 2 weeks, in between the various parties, vacations, and golf outings he has planned.

as an American, i am utterly EMBARRASSED that this bozo is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Inkana7
03-17-2011, 02:25 PM
did you hurt your back?

the contortions you're undergoing to somehow spin this in Obama's favor are remarkable.

we all understand that there are no easy decisions to make when it comes to that part of the world. that's why we need to elect grownups to office.

what we've got now are amateurs who can't make up their minds about what to do. they literally have no clue.

and it's not enough to just vote "present" as Obama did during his time in the IL statehouse and the US Senate. make a decision and act on it (hopefully the right decision).

i despise Hillary as much as any conservative, but i have to give her some amount of credit for recognizing how amateurish our current administration truly is.



http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/

Gaddafi chose the right time to squash the rebels. now that March Madness is underway, Obama's attention will be focused on that for 2 weeks, in between the various parties, vacations, and golf outings he has planned.

as an American, i am utterly EMBARRASSED that this bozo is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Spin? Look it up. Libya is not on the State Department's list of states that sponsor Terrorism. They were taken off by the Bush Administration in 2006. That's a fact.

You're living in the Cold War, man. We're already invested in the complete rebuilding of two countries, and you think we can add another to the pile?

And today the US even pushed for the UN to adopt a pretty hardlined policy on this issue, so you're whining about nothing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

And if taking military action without UN approval isn't against some international law, its on the line.

bowtown
03-17-2011, 02:40 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that Hillary is not going to be the Secretary of State anymore after her first term. She's already burned out.

Who ya gonna get now Barra??


That's what happens to Secretaries of State. It's an unbelieveably demanding job. Almost none of them make it more than a single term.

Rohirrim
03-17-2011, 02:48 PM
Yeah, damnit! We should just invade Libya and do a little more nation building. It's working so well in Afghanistan. Hell, we should solve all the world's problems. That's what we're here for.

cutthemdown
03-17-2011, 02:58 PM
I love how people defend Obama. They either say Bush took too many vacations, or say what we can't fix every country, or we aren't police of the world.

Actually we are the police of the world, Bush didn't take too many vacation because he was working at Camp David and his Ranch, and we can try to fix what we can.

I love the how there is nothing to be done here with Libya stance the Libyarels or clamoring about.

Chris
03-17-2011, 03:06 PM
I'm so friggin happy right now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

Mark Mardell At the United Nations in New York <hr> The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision.
After hanging back for days, the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up.



The fact that French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe will be here in person is a sign of his confidence that the Russians and Chinese won't block it.


Some reports quote the French saying that there could be an attack within hours of a vote passing. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part.


Although there have been other recent UN operations, this would be the most serious intervention in a crisis for a long time, a marked contrast to the division over Iraq.
That does not ease the worries of some in the administration that this will still be labelled an American war and they will be dragged deeper and deeper into the affairs of another Arab nation.

Rohirrim
03-17-2011, 03:49 PM
I love how people defend Obama. They either say Bush took too many vacations, or say what we can't fix every country, or we aren't police of the world.

Actually we are the police of the world, Bush didn't take too many vacation because he was working at Camp David and his Ranch, and we can try to fix what we can.

I love the how there is nothing to be done here with Libya stance the Libyarels or clamoring about.

Saudi troops just marched into Bahrain and killed protesters there. Hell, we have a base right there in Bahrain. Should we start a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we willing to protect those Bahrainian protesters?

Chris
03-17-2011, 03:58 PM
Saudi troops just marched into Bahrain and killed protesters there. Hell, we have a base right there in Bahrain. Should we start a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we willing to protect those Bahrainian protesters?

Because Bahrain isn't going to kill all of its people if we don't. That's how bad Gaddaffi is.

bowtown
03-17-2011, 08:39 PM
Because Bahrain isn't going to kill all of its people if we don't. That's how bad Gaddaffi is.

Incorrect. Please try again. I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with boil.

STBumpkin
03-18-2011, 05:44 PM
Saudi troops just marched into Bahrain and killed protesters there. Hell, we have a base right there in Bahrain. Should we start a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we willing to protect those Bahrainian protesters?

The riots in Bahrain are very isolated. I have two buddies on duty there now who say nothing out of the ordinary is going on for them. Believe me, if the crap in Bahrain was serious, they would have been withdrawn to Qatar already. The media is blowing Bahrain out of proportion. Bahrain is one of our biggest bases in the region, if we aren't reacting there isn't anything to worry about.

cutthemdown
03-18-2011, 06:16 PM
Saudi troops just marched into Bahrain and killed protesters there. Hell, we have a base right there in Bahrain. Should we start a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we willing to protect those Bahrainian protesters?

I've asked same thing. Which is why I said Obama shouldn't talk so tough if he isn't willing to be consistent with each rebellion. The reason we aren't protecting in Bahrain is because our 5th fleet there, we have deals with the Sunni Monarchies of Bahrain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But once he talked tough he has to follow through. But I wouldn't have been against him just saying we are done with things like this for now, arab league handle it yourself.

He didn't though he actually talked in a way after Tunisa and Egypt that fomented this stuff. He should have chosen his words more carefully.

Rigs11
03-18-2011, 06:31 PM
Ahh the armchair presidents have spoken!so geniuses what should we do about Syria,Bahrain,or our allies in Yemen?no fly zones for all of them?hell we can do it right? Oh and we can also balance our budget at the same time right? You're all dimwits.Your republican leaders have been pretty quiet on all this as well.

Rigs11
03-18-2011, 06:34 PM
I've asked same thing. Which is why I said Obama shouldn't talk so tough if he isn't willing to be consistent with each rebellion. The reason we aren't protecting in Bahrain is because our 5th fleet there, we have deals with the Sunni Monarchies of Bahrain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But once he talked tough he has to follow through. But I wouldn't have been against him just saying we are done with things like this for now, arab league handle it yourself.

He didn't though he actually talked in a way after Tunisa and Egypt that fomented this stuff. He should have chosen his words more carefully.
Do you live in the real world? Reality? Do you not understand that our military is already spread thin?The reason we aren't in Bahrain is because Saudi Arabia has crap loads of money and they are trying to pay off the rebellion.

Arkie
03-18-2011, 07:39 PM
France and Italy probably (but not certainly) could act but won't. The Air Force is hardly better equipped than the Navy. The armed forces of the US are stretched to their limit. There is a reason we pulled/are pulling out of Iraq. It's because we can no longer be effective in both Iraq and Afghanistan, period. Don't get me wrong, we can and will respond to a threat on our nation's integrity decisively, but we have forces in Africa, Europe, South America and Asia that are all crying for assets. We can't be expected to solve all the worlds problems at the beck and call of everyone who has a cause. If we were to receive more funding, several top projects (to repair or replace necessary equipment) wouldn't have been dropped recently. The military needs money if we're going to maintain our supremacy. The American population, mirrored by the current administration, is unwilling to provide that money.

Unwilling or unable? We don't have the money.

STBumpkin
03-19-2011, 04:47 AM
Unwilling or unable? We don't have the money.

Money can always be found at the detriment of other programs. It's all about priorities. The current administration would rather prop up the rust belt.

Arkie
03-19-2011, 10:56 AM
I appreciate the troops. I really do. Like you said, the armed forces are spread too thin. We need to get priorities straight regarding defense spending because a lot of it is wasteful. Also, I don't think it should be the administration's responsibility to take action. Congress needs to take back their authority. Once they decide to take action, then the President can take over.

Chris
03-19-2011, 11:09 AM
First shots fired by the French.

Cito Pelon
03-19-2011, 11:19 AM
First shots fired by the French.

So they were waiting for the US support, or what?

d bronx42
03-19-2011, 12:29 PM
Libya's fighter jets look they are from 1985... Do the really want our F-22's blowing them up in less than 10 seconds? Have fun with that. :afro:

cutthemdown
03-19-2011, 12:34 PM
I heard they are attacking tanks and govt troops as well. This isn't a no fly zone, then is putting down the govt forces. A no fly zone won't get it done. Basically the UN has declared war on the Libyans and will have to occupy with a peace keeping force when it is over.

I don't really care either way but once they talked tough they had no choice.We will see how it works out now that it has begun. Wow France is putting on a whole new hat. Good to see them kicking ass and not being pussies. It's been a long time but very welcome.

cutthemdown
03-19-2011, 12:35 PM
I appreciate the troops. I really do. Like you said, the armed forces are spread too thin. We need to get priorities straight regarding defense spending because a lot of it is wasteful. Also, I don't think it should be the administration's responsibility to take action. Congress needs to take back their authority. Once they decide to take action, then the President can take over.

So you don't think the President should lead on military matters. But rather wait for people like Pelosi to decided? give me a break our Congress can't get anything right in time to make a good war.

cutthemdown
03-19-2011, 12:36 PM
Do you live in the real world? Reality? Do you not understand that our military is already spread thin?The reason we aren't in Bahrain is because Saudi Arabia has crap loads of money and they are trying to pay off the rebellion.

No we aren't in Bahrain because we want the monarchy to win. it's that simple. It is because they have crap loads of money though you got that right.

Rohirrim
03-19-2011, 01:21 PM
Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

Obushma
03-19-2011, 01:24 PM
Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

CIA training ground?

footstepsfrom#27
03-19-2011, 02:19 PM
Once they kill or overthrow this prick they need to go after the a-holes in Khartoum responsible for conducting genocide in Darfur. Four million homeless, 400,000 dead, and the worst part is we have had the tools to stop this long ago.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-19-2011, 05:00 PM
Once they kill or overthrow this prick they need to go after the a-holes in Khartoum responsible for conducting genocide in Darfur. Four million homeless, 400,000 dead, and the worst part is we have had the tools to stop this long ago.

I know, but that would conflict with China's oil investments.

Arkie
03-19-2011, 06:36 PM
So you don't think the President should lead on military matters. But rather wait for people like Pelosi to decided? give me a break our Congress can't get anything right in time to make a good war.

Should we ignore Article 1, Section 8?

The Congress shall have power

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

TailgateNut
03-19-2011, 09:44 PM
So you don't think the President should lead on military matters. But rather wait for people like Pelosi to decided? give me a break our Congress can't get anything right in time to make a good war.


You embarass yourself everytime you respond.

cutthemdown
03-19-2011, 11:45 PM
Bleh it would be stupid to have to get Congressional approval for every military action. They can't even vote on simple things. I would never want any President hand tied like that.

footstepsfrom#27
03-20-2011, 12:12 AM
I know, but that would conflict with China's oil investments.
I don't give a **** about China's oil investments.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-20-2011, 04:05 AM
I'm just curious if everyone who demonstrated for peace and said fighting and dropping bombs is never the answer under Bush will have the integrity to do the same with Obama. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I hate how these things become political footballs instead of about the lives in peril

Pony Boy
03-20-2011, 07:09 AM
The Who (Won't Get Fooled Again) ......
"Meet the new boss Same as the old boss"

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

OABB
03-20-2011, 07:19 AM
The Who (Won't Get Fooled Again) ......
"Meet the new boss Same as the old boss"

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...


Your point would only work if a) Obama lied about the reason to go to war and b) he attacked Mexico.

Cito Pelon
03-20-2011, 08:53 AM
Gaddafi says "This will be a long war." I kind of doubt it, unless the political will evaporates. I didn't know that China and Russia abstained in the UN Security Council vote on Thursday.

I see the Arab League is already hedging their bets and now are decrying their initial endorsement. Politics, sheesh, always f'ing up a good war.

So there is about three days maybe to cripple Gaddafi.

footstepsfrom#27
03-20-2011, 09:26 AM
Didn't Reagan drop a bomb on his house and blow up his family? Just sayin...dude's been targeted before so it wouldn't surprise me to see him emerge as the new Saddam because he's got the resume and he's a natural enemy, a heroic islamic bad boy thumbing his terrorist nose at Uncle Sam, etc, etc...it will play in the Islamic world. It's funny how the military industrial complex survives every change in direction politically.

driver
03-20-2011, 09:41 AM
I heard they are attacking tanks and govt troops as well. This isn't a no fly zone, then is putting down the govt forces. A no fly zone won't get it done. Basically the UN has declared war on the Libyans and will have to occupy with a peace keeping force when it is over.

I don't really care either way but once they talked tough they had no choice.We will see how it works out now that it has begun. Wow France is putting on a whole new hat. Good to see them kicking ass and not being pussies. It's been a long time but very welcome.

I'd bet good money it's the FFL not the French Army.Ha!

Pony Boy
03-20-2011, 10:19 AM
Your point would only work if a) Obama lied about the reason to go to war and b) he attacked Mexico.

War #3 will be a long war if we don't put boots on the ground and we can't do that while we are losing war #1 and #2.

......so how's "that hopey changy thing working" for you Obama ass kissers? It's funny how it's still all about the price at the pump and you liberal loons think Obama is worried about the citizens of Libia.

Obushma
03-20-2011, 10:49 AM
Jesus Christ, all the Neo-Cons are salivating at the mouth with the thought of another war. All the **** heads have lined up to push the war machine forward, John Bolton was spewing his hate speech on Freedom Watch. Paul Wolfowitz was on ABC this morning promoting moving this into a full blown war.

A wolf in sheeps clothing (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-target-libya-13178889?tab=9482930&section=1206874&playlist=6505465)

http://crooksandliars.com/jason-sigger/neocons-want-war-libya

At the same time you've got the Neo-Libs joining forces with the Neo-Cons in their pursuit of a full blown war.

http://tarpley.net/2011/03/15/behind-the-2011-orgy-of-destabilizations/

From RPF:

"In ten years when a Libyan bombs your office building or kills your child, they'll say "Why do they hate us? And President Romney will whisper in your ear as he hits the nuke button, "They hate us for our freedoms.""

Boomhauer
03-20-2011, 11:49 AM
War #3 will be a long war if we don't put boots on the ground and we can't do that while we are losing war #1 and #2.

......so how's "that hopey changy thing working" for you Obama ass kissers? It's funny how it's still all about the price at the pump and you liberal loons think Obama is worried about the citizens of Libia.

War #3 ... #4 ... #5 ... -------------- Mr. Nobel loves military force and the lobbying perks more than the 'war President' he replaced. Any guess where this house of cards is going because it seems to be getting worse at an accelerating pace?

Bahrain opposition seeks UN, US help - MilitaryTimes 3.20.11
http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-bahrain-seeks-un-us-help-032011/
MANAMA, Bahrain — "Bahrain’s opposition asked for U.N. and American intervention in the government crackdown on the Shiite protests trying to loosen the monarchy’s grip, in a brief protest Sunday in the capital that disbanded before police could arrive to break it up.

The 18 opposition legislators protesting Sunday at the U.N. offices in Manama resigned last month to protest the crackdown on the monthlong revolt, inspired by the pro-democracy uprisings across the Arab world. Bahrain’s king declared martial law last week, and a Saudi-led military force from other Gulf nations is in the country to back the Sunni monarchy. ..."

Yemeni President Fires Cabinet - NY Times 3.20.11
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/03/20/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Yemen.html?ref=middleeast
SANAA, Yemen (AP) — "Yemen's president has fired his entire Cabinet amid escalating protests demanding his ouster. President Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing a monthlong popular uprising against him that has turned increasingly bloody in the past few days as security troops opened fire on demonstrators in the capital and in the country's south. Around 100 people have been killed so far in the unrest.

The president's office issued a statement Sunday saying he was firing his Cabinet. The announcement came after members of Saleh's own tribe called on him to step down, robbing the U.S.-backed leader of vital support. ..."

OABB
03-20-2011, 12:00 PM
War #3 will be a long war if we don't put boots on the ground and we can't do that while we are losing war #1 and #2.

......so how's "that hopey changy thing working" for you Obama ass kissers? It's funny how it's still all about the price at the pump and you liberal loons think Obama is worried about the citizens of Libia.

It's going well actually. It takes longer than two years to clean up 8 years of damage.

How's that trickly down thinging working for you guys?

broncocalijohn
03-20-2011, 12:01 PM
So they were waiting for the US support, or what?

Any rumor they quit right after we shot our missiles? As much as I am a conservative and support our military actions (minus Iraq), Im feeling more like Pat Buchanan right now.

Boomhauer
03-20-2011, 12:02 PM
How's that trickly down thinging working for you guys?

Is that a referance to Obamanomics?

TonyR
03-20-2011, 12:08 PM
Jesus Christ, all the Neo-Cons are salivating at the mouth with the thought of another war. All the **** heads have lined up to push the war machine forward, John Bolton was spewing his hate speech on Freedom Watch. Paul Wolfowitz was on ABC this morning promoting moving this into a full blown war.


Yup. Two wars isn't enough. We need a third.

OABB
03-20-2011, 12:15 PM
Is that a referance to Obamanomics?

I believe it's a reference to reaganomics, or voodoo economics. Whatever you want to call it.

It's basically the myth that by cutting the rich a break they will reinvest it and it will trickle down.

It works, but only if you are Chinese, Indian or already wealthy.

Rohirrim
03-20-2011, 01:23 PM
Another war? This calls for more tax breaks for the rich.

OABB
03-20-2011, 01:24 PM
Another war? This calls for more tax breaks for the rich.

Good call.


Works every time.

Obushma
03-20-2011, 02:16 PM
Another war? This calls for more tax breaks for the rich.

Yup, another illegal undeclared war which is treasonous under the US Constitution. Only this time, it's the lefts puppet committing treason. Where is the anti-war left, think moveon.org will have any articles about it's illegality?

We're living in bizzaro world 2006. Democrats, ****ing hypocrites, all of you.

cutthemdown
03-20-2011, 02:54 PM
Now Arab league backing out and having second thoughts. What were they thinking saying we approve a no fly zone. Also though this is way more then a no fly zone. They attacked vehicles, tanks, cars with machine guns in back. This is far more then a no fly zone.

Obama may have been smart to let the French and the UK eat it on this one. Or maybe he was dumb for not getting it done earlier when it would have helped rebels more. Who knows, ****ing whole North Africa going up in flames. Now I hear Syria having trouble at home. Man this is getting crazy.

Obushma
03-20-2011, 03:58 PM
The American people have no idea whats going on over there, we slaughtered rebels with the air strikes.

10:29pm
US military: "We're not going after Gaddafi."
<!-- /.node -->


"More than 8,000 Libyan's aligned with the rebel movement have been killed", rebel spokesman Abdel Hafiz Ghoga

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-20-0

Pony Boy
03-20-2011, 09:00 PM
Another war? This calls for more tax breaks for the rich.

Bend over and grab your ankles we fired 120 Toma-Hawk missiles yesterday at a cost of 600K each...... Obama's answer, borrow from the chinese or print more money.

Boomhauer
03-20-2011, 09:20 PM
Bend over and grab your ankles we fired 120 Toma-Hawk missiles yesterday at a cost of 600K each...... Obama's answer, borrow from the chinese or print more money.

Harrier jump-jets, Growlers, F-15s, F-16s, B-2 bombers, AWACS , KC-130 tankers also involved yesterday. Helicopters, P-3s, drones and Marine explosive experts available.

The big question, Where's the French Rafales, Mirage or British/Italian/German Eurofighters? A few small countries have offered a half dozen F-16s each in support, but this seems more like the US and a 'coalition of the willing' than Europe taking care of their house.

Boomhauer
03-20-2011, 09:23 PM
Yup. Two wars isn't enough. We need a third.

Only three, but what about Bahrain and Yemen?
http://www.saltydroid.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/The-FiF.jpg

Obushma
03-21-2011, 12:33 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0veajMpn7-Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TonyR
03-21-2011, 05:40 AM
Only three, but what about Bahrain and Yemen?


And while we're at it, plenty of work to be done in Africa. Right?

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 07:05 AM
The American people have no idea whats going on over there, we slaughtered rebels with the air strikes.

<!-- /.node -->


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-20-0

LOL...you and Gaf need to get a room

BroncoLifer
03-21-2011, 07:29 AM
Yup, another illegal undeclared war which is treasonous under the US Constitution. Only this time, it's the lefts puppet committing treason. Where is the anti-war left, think moveon.org will have any articles about it's illegality?

We're living in bizzaro world 2006. Democrats, ****ing hypocrites, all of you.

Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007:

‎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.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/


Of course, everything Obama has ever said comes with an expiration date.

baja
03-21-2011, 07:42 AM
Do we ever know the truth;

This is what Libia is saying;

Quotes from Mohammad al-Zawi, the secretary-general of the Libyan Public Congress (Parliament)



I am very sorry and saddened that my country tonight is facing a barbaric and armed attack. Some Western countries are leading a rocket attack in Tripoli and Misurata. An attack that caused some real harm gainst civilians and buildings.

"This barbaric aggression against the Libyan ppl comes while we have announced the ceasefire against the armed militias which are prt of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

"And the attack comes as Libya has announced general and major developments and reforms in the economic and organisational contexts.

"The number of civilians who have been hurt or harmed by this aggression tonight, the number is filling up our hositals, and ambulances are doing their best to save as many lives of civilians as possible.

"This aggression is barbaric and that has no excuse since Libya has already accepted the resolutions of the security council and announced and the armed forces announced a ceasefire and stopped all military operations against the armed militias.

"Furthermore, Libya has requested the presence of international observers on the ground to judge that we did really stop our military operations.

"And instead of sending fact-finding missions to find out what is really happening, some countries have elected for an aggression against Libya.This aggression will not weaken our spirit, and will not convince Libyans to give up to the armed militias who are part of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

"And what you have seen of the masses gathering in different locations to protect them, declaring their allegiance to the leader of the country, is the proof that the Libyan people will not be defeated."

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 07:57 AM
Well, apparently there's a little something for everybody to complain about regarding the current situation.

Kinda goofy that some anti-Obama folks complain he waited too long, then other anti-Obama's chime in and say how come he did this?

As for "war #3", as long as no ground troops are committed, and as long as these other gung-ho nations pick up the slack with strafing runs after the US has knocked out the air defenses, and the rebels can take advantage of the UN intervention, then hopefully it's a quick exit from a war footing.

I think basically there's a lot of sentiment to take Gadaffi out now the opportunity was presented politically. There's a lot of scores to settle with Gadaffi.

baja
03-21-2011, 08:01 AM
Well, apparently there's a little something for everybody to complain about regarding the current situation.

Kinda goofy that some anti-Obama folks complain he waited too long, then other anti-Obama's chime in and say how come he did this?

As for "war #3", as long as no ground troops are committed, and as long as these other gung-ho nations pick up the slack with strafing runs after the US has knocked out the air defenses, and the rebels can take advantage of the UN intervention, then hopefully it's a quick exit from a war footing.

I think basically there's a lot of sentiment to take Gadaffi out now the opportunity was presented politically. There's a lot of scores to settle with Gadaffi.

But who will take his place as GQ's best dressed Middle East dictator

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 08:08 AM
Any rumor they quit right after we shot our missiles? As much as I am a conservative and support our military actions (minus Iraq), Im feeling more like Pat Buchanan right now.

You can go to AFP.com (Agency France Press) if you want their version of events.

Also, some AFP articles are posted on Yahoo's news page. http://news.yahoo.com/world/afp

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 08:17 AM
Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa says he fully supports the UN resolution authorising military action against Libya, saying his comments the previous day that the air strikes exceeded the UN mandate had been "misinterpreted

LOL!

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 08:24 AM
Bend over and grab your ankles we fired 120 Toma-Hawk missiles yesterday at a cost of 600K each...... Obama's answer, borrow from the chinese or print more money.

Or, tax the rich like he wanted to do, duh. It never ceases to amaze me how people think it's a good idea to not tax the rich. They laugh all the way to the bank and think to themselves, "It's amazing how stupid some people can be, giving me money out of their own pockets that they could have invested themselves if they weren't so incredibly stupid."

Rohirrim
03-21-2011, 08:39 AM
Bend over and grab your ankles we fired 120 Toma-Hawk missiles yesterday at a cost of 600K each...... Obama's answer, borrow from the chinese or print more money.

We can just cut education some more.

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 08:44 AM
these retards errrrrrrrrrrrrr leaders of the world can't get their stories straight: is a civil war in Russia next?

1502 GMT: President Dmitry Medvedev has slammed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's 'unacceptable' Libya crusade comments, my colleagues in Moscow report, in the most public clash yet between Russia's ruling tandem.

Putin earlier Monday said the UN resolution authorising Western powers' military action against Libya was a flawed text resembling a 'medieval call to crusade'.

Chris
03-21-2011, 09:45 AM
Or, tax the rich like he wanted to do, duh. It never ceases to amaze me how people think it's a good idea to not tax the rich. They laugh all the way to the bank and think to themselves, "It's amazing how stupid some people can be, giving me money out of their own pockets that they could have invested themselves if they weren't so incredibly stupid."

Pretty much. The republicans couldn't explain why they wanted that estate tax change. They tried to keep it quiet. The reality is these are the people / families who back them.

Obushma
03-21-2011, 10:02 AM
LOL...you and Gaf need to get a room

We killed 8,000 of the people we were trying to help, if that says "conspiracy" to you, maybe it's time to pull your head out of the systems ass there bm.

Kinda goofy that some anti-Obama folks complain he waited too long, then other anti-Obama's chime in and say how come he did this?

Thats because your grasp on politics is kindergarten knowledge. You have two sides because there is a split in the GOP, and the almost silent echo of the anti-war left against the Neo-Libs.

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 10:06 AM
We killed 8,000 of the people we were trying to help, if that says "conspiracy" to you, maybe it's time to pull your head out of the systems ass there bm.



Thats because your grasp on politics is kindergarten knowledge. You have two sides because there is a split in the GOP, and the almost silent echo of the anti-war left against the Neo-Libs.

no where in that link did it say that the USA killed 8000 people in Libya

Obushma
03-21-2011, 10:36 AM
It's a blog bm, you read from the bottom up. This is from the 20th.


11:11pm This photo shows mourners at the funerals of people reportedly killed after last night's airstrikes, at the martyrs' cemetary in Tripoli.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/586/mourn.jpg

10:53pm The death toll is higher than previously thought. Rebel spokesman Abdel Hafiz Ghoga told Al Jazeera Arabic:

Our dead and martyrs number more than 8,000 killed.

.Timestamp:
10:50pm Greek communists in Athens have been demonstrating in against their country's involvement in the military campaign in Libya. Protester Tasia Kontoyanni said:

With today's demonstration, the Greek Communist Party and its youth movement give a first reply to the
imperialists' operation and attack in Libya.

We believe that every people must have the right to decide on internal issues alone, without external operations - and in particular without military operations.

.Timestamp:
10:46pm The Pentagon said it had lost no aircraft in the first day of attacks on Libya -and "questions all statements" from Gaddafi - including his offer of a ceasefire.

.Timestamp:
10:42pm So, a second night of bombardment is underway in Tripoli, with explosions being heard across the Libyan capital as the Pentagon gave a press conference on last night's attacks.

Several blasts rocked the city, say Reuters. The news agency also confirmed what Al Jazeera's Anita Mcnaught told us, that a plume of smoke was seen rising toward the sky from the direction of Gaddafi's home in the Bab el-Aziziya compound - which sits in the heart of a south Tripoli suburb.

.Timestamp:
10:35pm We'll be bringing you that Pentagon press conference in its entirety, just as soon as we get it uploaded. Watch this space...

.Timestamp:
10:29pm US military: "We're not going after Gaddafi."

.Timestamp:
10:27pm US military: "We are not aware of any civilian casualites" from last night's bombing in Libya.

.Timestamp:
10:26pm Anita reports a "huge explosion in the general direction of Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia compound".

.Timestamp:
10:20pm Anita McNaught, reporting from Tripoli, tells Al Jazeera, above the noise of anti-aircraft fire, of the scene around her.

The shooting is much closer to our position now, but we still can't hear any aircraft. Of course, they may be flying too high, or the fire may be targeting missiles, as they were last night. It is impossible to see from here, though we have a good view of the city, we can't see any smoke or any fires breaking out.

But all around us, there is anti-aircraft fire going off. So there is an expectation of something happening, if it hasn't already ...

These offers of a ceasefire are a little strange, seeing as there is already the offer of a ceasefire from the foreign minister yesterday.

You have to ask if this is a decision being made in the full view of the Libyan public. When the military spokesman was asked if this was going to be broadcast on state TV and Libyans would be made aware that there was a ceasefire offer, he said no.

.Timestamp:
10:12pm US military: We are not coordinating our strikes with opposition fighters

.Timestamp:
10:05pm A "loud explosion" has been heard in Tripoli, amid anti-aircraft fire. More to come.

The 8,000 were killed on the 19th by allied air strikes, here is a statement from al-Zawi

10:55pm Quotes from Mohammad al-Zawi, the secretary-general of the Libyan Public Congress (Parliament)


I am very sorry and saddened that my country tonight is facing a barbaric and armed attack. Some Western countries are leading a rocket attack in Tripoli and Misurata. An attack that caused some real harm gainst civilians and buildings.

"This barbaric aggression against the Libyan ppl comes while we have announced the ceasefire against the armed militias which are prt of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

"And the attack comes as Libya has announced general and major developments and reforms in the economic and organisational contexts.

"The number of civilians who have been hurt or harmed by this aggression tonight, the number is filling up our hositals, and ambulances are doing their best to save as many lives of civilians as possible.

"This aggression is barbaric and that has no excuse since Libya has already accepted the resolutions of the security council and announced and the armed forces announced a ceasefire and stopped all military operations against the armed militias.

"Furthermore, Libya has requested the presence of international observers on the ground to judge that we did really stop our military operations.

"And instead of sending fact-finding missions to find out what is really happening, some countries have elected for an aggression against Libya.This aggression will not weaken our spirit, and will not convince Libyans to give up to the armed militias who are part of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

"And what you have seen of the masses gathering in different locations to protect them, declaring their allegiance to the leader of the country, is the proof that the Libyan people will not be defeated."

Boomhauer
03-21-2011, 10:39 AM
Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007:
‎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.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Of course, everything Obama has ever said comes with an expiration date.

How far could you Judo-toss Obama, because that's as far as you should trust him.

WABronco
03-21-2011, 10:54 AM
no where in that link did it say that the USA killed 8000 people in Libya

Let him have his fun. Obviously our cruise missiles were aimed at schoolyard congregations of small children and women, as well as 6 story buildings with prayer groups on every floor. That is the only way ~100 cruise missiles could wipe out 8,000 rebels. Unless they used nuclear warheads...good god....THIS BUSHMA MIGHT BE ONTO SOMETHING.

WABronco
03-21-2011, 10:59 AM
btw they released those NYT journalists. Thought for sure those guys had been wacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.journalists.freed/index.html?hpt=T1

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 11:00 AM
they counted 8000 after one night....they should get those guys to Japan ASAP!

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 11:12 AM
EXCLUSIVE: Libyans Use Journalists as Human Shields


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/exclusive-libyans-use-journalists-human-shields/

Obushma
03-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Let him have his fun. Obviously our cruise missiles were aimed at schoolyard congregations of small children and women, as well as 6 story buildings with prayer groups on every floor. That is the only way ~100 cruise missiles could wipe out 8,000 rebels. Unless they used nuclear warheads...good god....THIS BUSHMA MIGHT BE ONTO SOMETHING.

You could have had 8,000 people standing in a main square and 10 cruise missles could wipe them out, nice take.

Garcia Bronco
03-21-2011, 11:29 AM
they counted 8000 after one night....they should get those guys to Japan ASAP!

indeed.

WABronco
03-21-2011, 11:30 AM
You could have had 8,000 people standing in a main square and 10 cruise missles could wipe them out, nice take.

Sorry, my scenario is far more plausible.

Obushma
03-21-2011, 11:32 AM
Sorry, my scenario is far more plausible.

Yeah, then groups of rebels amassing to fight, it sure is. :spit:

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 11:34 AM
But who will take his place as GQ's best dressed Middle East dictator

He has the dictator savoire-faire. I'd like to see him strung up by his heels like Mussolini.

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 11:37 AM
You could have had 8,000 people standing in a main square and 10 cruise missiles could wipe them out, nice take.

would it a be too large a leap of faith to say the Rebels have suffered 8000 casualties since Qaddafi started using his military?

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 11:38 AM
Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa says he fully supports the UN resolution authorising military action against Libya, saying his comments the previous day that the air strikes exceeded the UN mandate had been "misinterpreted

LOL!

Sheesh. The friggin Arab League, bunch of leeches.

WABronco
03-21-2011, 11:40 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1

The Libyan government has said that 48 people, mostly women, children and clerics, have died in allied attacks.

However, U.S. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney said, "We have no indication of any civilian casualties."

And France -- which conducted the first strike in Libya on Saturday when fighter jets fired at a military vehicle -- also disputed claims of civilian deaths.

"There is no information of killed civilians recorded by the French command," French government spokesman Francois Baroin said Monday on the French TV channel Canal+. "We must be cautious of communication campaigns and propaganda."

Ahmed Gebreel, a member of the Libyan opposition, told CNN the Gadhafi government collected bodies of people killed in fighting in the past week and displayed them over the weekend in an attempt to show they were killed by coalition airstrikes.

In all seriousness, the 8,000 figure is almost certainly the total casualty count since the beginning of the fighting.

WABronco
03-21-2011, 11:41 AM
Sheesh. The friggin Arab League, bunch of leeches.

They gotta keep that Muslim street cred. Evidently they didn't think the UN would take them up on their offer to bomb the **** out of Gaddafi.

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 11:41 AM
these retards errrrrrrrrrrrrr leaders of the world can't get their stories straight: is a civil war in Russia next?

1502 GMT: President Dmitry Medvedev has slammed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's 'unacceptable' Libya crusade comments, my colleagues in Moscow report, in the most public clash yet between Russia's ruling tandem.

Putin earlier Monday said the UN resolution authorising Western powers' military action against Libya was a flawed text resembling a 'medieval call to crusade'.

WTF? That's pretty interesting.

bronco militia
03-21-2011, 11:44 AM
WTF? That's pretty interesting.

I found that in the yahoo link

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 11:56 AM
They gotta keep that Muslim street cred. Evidently they didn't think the UN would take them up on their offer to bomb the **** out of Gaddafi.

Seems like the US has to be the bad guy all the time to police the nutjobs when the going gets tough.

Obushma
03-21-2011, 12:40 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1



In all seriousness, the 8,000 figure is almost certainly the total casualty count since the beginning of the fighting.

Theres no way you can confirm any number. The US DoD lied to the American people on the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan as proven by the Wikileaks cables.

You have exact opposite reports coming out of foreign media then US media. Notice these two videos, now i'm not saying either are fact, but it's obvious that there is a propaganda war going on here similar to what happened in South Ossetia. RT is claiming the Russian government has proof from its satellites that no Libyan government forces bombed their own people, this video was from March 8th.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qq9aRezajls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Then you have this video which was also posted March 8th

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HrWJpPjro-A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When all is said and done, what Obama did was lie to the American people as evidenced by this video I posted earlier.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0veajMpn7-Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Congress did not declare war, we were not under any imminent threat for the President to use his executive order. We don't have the money or the right to be involved in this civil war.

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 03:47 PM
Looks like there will have to be a lot of strafing from UN forces to push Gaddafi back. Once his "forces" see they can't win they will collapse.

cutthemdown
03-21-2011, 03:53 PM
I think once a citizen grabbed a gun the Libyan govt shot at them, said they are no longer citizens. The UN and USA trying to say nope those our just protesters and therefore civilians.

For sure they wanted it to seem like normal peaceful people being killed. In reality the ones being targeted were revolutionaries. There is a big difference.

This is a joke of a no fly zone. No fly zone only protects against aircraft being used to target citizens. This is an outright pre-assault to a ground invasion IMO. They will call it peacekeeping.

Hell Iran is right about us lol. We will use any unrest to invade. Here is the criteria.

1-have oil, be strategically located
2-have a weak military
3-being historically unfriendly to the USA
4-have oil
5-Don't buy your weapons from the USA but instead have Russian gear
6-Are not Sunni dominated

Dr. Broncenstein
03-21-2011, 05:06 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/12/obama-nobel-smile-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Chris
03-21-2011, 05:08 PM
I think once a citizen grabbed a gun the Libyan govt shot at them, said they are no longer citizens. The UN and USA trying to say nope those our just protesters and therefore civilians.

For sure they wanted it to seem like normal peaceful people being killed. In reality the ones being targeted were revolutionaries. There is a big difference.

This is a joke of a no fly zone. No fly zone only protects against aircraft being used to target citizens. This is an outright pre-assault to a ground invasion IMO. They will call it peacekeeping.

Hell Iran is right about us lol. We will use any unrest to invade. Here is the criteria.

1-have oil, be strategically located
2-have a weak military
3-being historically unfriendly to the USA
4-have oil
5-Don't buy your weapons from the USA but instead have Russian gear
6-Are not Sunni dominated

No dude. They are going into cities and shooting everyone on sight. We're talking huge cities filled with civilians. Just today people went out to protest again believing in the Gaddafi ceasefire and troops opened fire, killing 40 and injuring many more.

Perry1977
03-21-2011, 06:45 PM
It's a nice preview of the USA in about 5 years.

srphoenix
03-21-2011, 07:11 PM
Theres no way you can confirm any number. The US DoD lied to the American people on the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan as proven by the Wikileaks cables.

You have exact opposite reports coming out of foreign media then US media. Notice these two videos, now i'm not saying either are fact, but it's obvious that there is a propaganda war going on here similar to what happened in South Ossetia. RT is claiming the Russian government has proof from its satellites that no Libyan government forces bombed their own people, this video was from March 8th.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qq9aRezajls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



LOL at Russian computers and technology in the video. The video literally shows like 5 soldiers in a room on CRT monitors looking at pre-tetris style graphics of 4 red dots and a green square. The shot before was a Russian dude violently poking one of two buttons...

Obushma
03-21-2011, 07:55 PM
LOL at Russian computers and technology in the video. The video literally shows like 5 soldiers in a room on CRT monitors looking at pre-tetris style graphics of 4 red dots and a green square. The shot before was a Russian dude violently poking one of two buttons...

I'm talking about treasonous actions under the US Constitution and this guy comes along busting my balls on Russian b-roll. What that video footage does, is help it so you don't stare at a talking face for an entire news program.

srphoenix
03-21-2011, 08:12 PM
Its a Bronco internet forum, none of us are deciding foreign policy here, so if I see something I find funny. I think it's within my internet forum rights to point it out and laugh about. Save the trolling for when I actually argue against your position on the subject. If you really want to get picky that wasn't technically b-roll either as they were discussing the actual event of the soldier pointing at the lack of bombings. B-roll would be defined as random associated video such as a school story where they show kids randomly walking in the background.

srphoenix
03-21-2011, 08:27 PM
Although my original comment was never meant to be part of a serious debate. One could easily argue that their inferior technology leaves reasonable doubt that their claims are actually true. This is further exassperated by the fact that russia has and continues to have an agenda against the united states.

Boomhauer
03-22-2011, 12:18 AM
I'm talking about treasonous actions under the US Constitution and this guy comes along busting my balls on Russian b-roll. What that video footage does, is help it so you don't stare at a talking face for an entire news program.

Speaking of "staring at a talking face" - Is it just me, or does blondie have a crazy look in her eyes in that still. Her lip and face tuck also makes her look a bit like the Joker. "Can someone tell me what kind of world we live in where a man dressed up as a a bat gets all my press? This town needs an enima!"

Boomhauer
03-22-2011, 12:20 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/12/obama-nobel-smile-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

The Nobel Prize had already lost all credibility,
but Obama's race-based award was an epic fail.
Notice how 'Fails' always stand together? Should
make you double check who you stand with.

bendog
03-22-2011, 08:19 AM
"race based" Dude you outed yourself. LOL

edgemyster
03-22-2011, 04:25 PM
I won't stand on a soap box and pretend I know exactly what the response should be, but I feel compelled to provide some perspective based on how I've come to see it since February 17th. Apologies if I'm covering subjects that have already been discussed, I haven't read the full thread.

It's a mistake to rely on the word of the current Libyan govt with regards to the impact of the missile attacks. First, they are the one's being targeted. Second, anyone in the gov't with half a conscious resigned in the first days after Gaddafi paid and trucked in mercenaries to terrorize his own people as a response to the protests.

There is just so much evidence in the way of online video that anyone watching in the early hours leading up to UN intervention could not reasonably debate that something very wrong wasn't going on here.

The "revolutionaries" were citizen protesters who were not armed until large parts of the military and police forces defected because they disobeyed orders to fire on their own people. Many of those individuals were subsequently executed by mercenaries and Gaddafi's loyal guard (look for the videos if you want).

Video of mercenaries rolling into town: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2bDtQV_9YA

Videos of mercenaries (w/ yellow hats) attacking civilians:
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu7nkAjzR6o
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwWoSJfmCA

Captured mercenaries admitting they were promised jobs or US dollars if they opted to fight for Gaddafi (translations below videos):
(1 - contains some blood) http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/02/breaking-captured-mercenary-being-shielded-by-libyans/
(2) http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/captured-mercenary-yesterday-in-brega/
(3 - WARNING: GRAPHIC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ZpxAv-J7Y

"Fake" Libyan protester offered work if he agreed to come in and participate in pro-Gaddafi rallys (translation below video): http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/translated-mercenary-interrogated-in-benghazi/

Libya is just the tip of the iceberg - mid-east/africa govt's are coming down hard on unarmed and peaceful protesters. Here's what happened in Bahrain recently:

(1) (WARNING: graphic at :30 in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nI02Z8B1dw
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJINi_IFa7s

Member of the Libyan opposition national council describing their opinion of the coalition's involvement (post UN military strike) - for main points, skip to 3:53: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkwTcioh-uU