Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, March 20, 2011

Allies launch Libya force as Gadhafi hits rebels

March 20, 2011

Advertisement

A huge explosion is seen over the outskirts of Benghazi after a warplane was shot down Saturday over Benghazi, eastern Libya. Explosions shook the Libyan city of Benghazi early on Saturday while a Libyan jet fighter was heard flying overhead, and residents said the eastern rebel stronghold was under attack from Muammar Gadhafi’s forces.

A huge explosion is seen over the outskirts of Benghazi after a warplane was shot down Saturday over Benghazi, eastern Libya. Explosions shook the Libyan city of Benghazi early on Saturday while a Libyan jet fighter was heard flying overhead, and residents said the eastern rebel stronghold was under attack from Muammar Gadhafi’s forces.

— The U.S. and European nations pounded Moammar Gadhafi’s forces and air defenses with cruise missiles and airstrikes Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat. Libyan state TV claimed 48 people had been killed in the attacks, but the report could not be independently verified.

The longtime Libyan leader vowed to defend his country from what he called “crusader aggression” and warned the involvement of international forces will subject the Mediterranean and North African region to danger and put civilians at risk.

The U.S. military said 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from American and British ships and submarines at more than 20 coastal targets to clear the way for air patrols to ground Libya’s air force. French fighter jets fired the first salvos, carrying out several strikes in the rebel-held east, while British fighter jets also bombarded the North African nation.

The strikes, which were aimed at enforcing a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, were a sharp escalation in the international effort to stop Gadhafi after weeks of pleading by the rebels, who have seen early gains reversed as the regime unleashed the full force of its superior air power and weaponry.

President Barack Obama said military action was not his first choice and reiterated that he would not send American ground troops to Libya.

“This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought,” Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”

Thousands of regime supporters, meanwhile, packed into the sprawling Bab al-Aziziya military camp in Tripoli where Gadhafi lives to protect against attacks.

Defense officials cautioned it was too early to fully gauge the impact of the onslaught. But a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the mission was ongoing, said the Americans believed Libya’s air defenses had been heavily damaged by the cruise missiles.

Explosions continued to rock the coastal cities, including Tripoli, where anti-aircraft guns could be heard firing overnight.

Libyan TV quoted the armed forces command as saying 48 people were killed and 150 wounded in the allied assault. It said most of the casualties were children but gave no more details.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it was “deeply concerned” about civilians’ safety and called on all sides “to abide strictly by the rules and principles of international humanitarian law” by distinguishing between civilians and fighters and allowing safe access for humanitarian organizations.

Gadhafi, who has ruled Libya for 41 years, said in a telephone call to Libyan state TV that he was opening weapons depots to allow his people to arm themselves in defense.

He said the international action against his forces was unjustified, calling it “simply a colonial crusader aggression that may ignite another large-scale crusader war.”

He also said the U.N. Security Council and the international community were responsible for “stopping this unjust flagrant aggression against a sovereign country immediately.”

His regime also acted quickly in the run-up to the strikes, sending warplanes, tanks and troops into the eastern city of Benghazi, the rebel capital and first city to fall to the rebellion that began Feb. 15. Then the government attacks appeared to go silent.

Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the allied assault has been dubbed, followed an emergency summit in Paris during which the 22 leaders and top officials agreed to do everything necessary to make Gadhafi respect a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday calling for the no-fly zone and demanding a cease-fire, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

“Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency,” Obama said earlier.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, told reporters in Washington that U.S. ships and a British submarine had launched the first phase of a missile assault on Libyan air defenses to clear the way for the imposition of a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over the North African country.

Gortney said the mission has two goals: prevent further attacks by Libyan forces on rebels and civilians, and degrade the Libyan military’s ability to contest a no-fly zone.

Mohammed Ali, a spokesman for the exiled opposition group the Libyan Salvation Front, said the Libyan air force headquarters at the Mateiga air base in eastern Tripoli and the Aviation Academy in Misrata had been targeted.

About 20 French fighter jets carried out “several strikes” earlier Saturday, military spokesman Thierry Burkhard told The Associated Press. He said earlier that one of the planes had fired the first shot against a Libyan military vehicle.

“All our planes have returned to base tonight,” he said, and denied a Libyan TV report that a French plane had been hit.

He would not elaborate on what was hit or where, but said French forces are focusing on the Benghazi area and U.S. forces are focused in the west.

The U.S. has struck Libya before. Former President Reagan launched U.S. airstrikes on Libya in 1986 after a bombing at a Berlin disco — which the U.S. blamed on Libya — that killed three people, including two American soldiers. The airstrikes killed about 100 people in Libya, including Gadhafi’s young adopted daughter at his Tripoli compound.

Libyan regime official Mohammed al-Zwei said a large number of civilians were injured when several civilian and military sites in the capital, Tripoli, and the nearby city of Misrata were hit. He also reiterated the Libyan allegation that the rebels were linked to al-Qaida. There was no way to independently verify the claims.

The rebels said earlier that they had hoped for more, sooner from the international community, after a day when crashing shells shook the buildings of Benghazi and Gadhafi’s tanks rumbled through the university campus.

A doctor said 27 bodies had reached hospitals by midday. As night fell, though, the streets grew quiet.

Comments

DeaconBlue 3 years, 9 months ago

Patsy warmongers for president will kill kill kill the innocent saying that they are saving lives.

Welcome to Bush 3

DeaconBlue 3 years, 9 months ago

Hmmmm....where are the Screaming Liberals?

No Blood for oil!

No Regime Change!

U.S. Out of Libya!

How about this one......Obama Lied.....people died.

Oh wait....that was the last Administration.

Roland Gunslinger 3 years, 9 months ago

Do you not see a difference between invading a country based on a lie and without UN approval versus a UN sanctioned no fly zone in which the acts of aggression didn't initiate from a foreign nation but rather from within that nation itself?

Congratulations, you just compared ice cream to Tuesday.

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 9 months ago

A "lie" that most prominent Dems going back to the mid- 90's agreed with and you know it. It then became politically expedient for the left to go berzerk over it when it became a tough, long, hard slog. And even with that under consideration, Bush, a leader, went ahead with the surge and it worked. Obama dithers around about everything from A-Z and is in constant campaign mode.

Roland Gunslinger 3 years, 9 months ago

Oh, I agree. Bush did a fantastic job selling that lie. It became expedient for a lot of people to go berserk when it was realized no WMDs existed and we were duped.

"Obama dithers around about everything..." So the surge in Afghanistan is dithering? Supporting our allies in enacting the newly approved no fly zone is dithering?

So which is it? Is he a war monger as you stated earlier or is he a ditherer? Seems to me he can't be both.

If he acts and passes healthcare reform he "jams it down our throat", yet if he does nothing he's a ditherer.

See that's the problem with your stance towards Obama. You contradict yourself so much in order to take any chance to cut him down.

Do I think Obama has done everything right in his presidency? Not at all. But I give credit when credit is due and I give criticism when criticism is due. What I don't do, which you apparently live for, is denigrate the office of the Presidency and the respect due the position holder- regardless of who is holding it.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

Give credit where credit is due... I agree. There were many negative things that came out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But one positive was that Libya, seeing the U.S.'s resolve in eliminating weapons of mass destruction, gave up it's own program. Whatever you think of the conflict now escalating in Libya, it's a better situation for Gadhafi not having weapons of mass destruction.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, what got him to give up his weapons programs was $billions from the governments and oil corporations that want his oil, and were perfectly willing to look the other way as he abused his own people as long as he kept those abuses primarily within the borders of Libya.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

see below-- the thread has narrowed too much, so to speak.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

Neither here nor there, but there was a "surge" in paying off the local warlords... Could have left the extra 30,000 troops at home and done that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2414588.ece

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Do you not see a difference between invading a country based on a lie and without UN approval versus a UN sanctioned no fly zone in which the acts of aggression didn't initiate from a foreign nation but rather from within that nation itself?"

Ooh, ooh, I do! In one we were acting as the most powerful nation on the planet, and in the latter we're turning over our armed forces to be lackeys to the French? That difference, you mean?

Besides the fact that todays news shows up the BS of claiming this is just enforcement of a no-fly zone, do YOU not see the hypocrisy of the liberals who screamed and yelled that Bush attacked a sovereign country for no other reason than to depose a tyrant who was killing his own people, and saying it's perfectly okay for Obama to do the exact same thing?

The U.N. is a joke, and always has been. Whether Iraq was running a program to develop WMD or not, the U.N., with France leading the cheers, said going in just to remove Hussein was a no-no. But when France wants to do it, it's okay? Give it a rest, seriously.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Nothing of substance there, ignoring it."

Gee, what a surprise.

The "substance" you failed to see is that the people of this country elect leaders to work for US, not for the United Nations.

"I don't remember an active ongoing military campaign in Iraq where Saddam's air and ground forces were fighting to take back cities held by rebels. I must've been sleeping for that portion of the lead up to the war, that or you're comparing ice cream to Tuesday."

I'm glad you can see the difference. Despite the claims that we're intervening here to prevent a tyrant from murdering his own citizens - which WAS the case in Iraq - the rebels in Libya started this, and we're doing nothing other than taking sides in a civil war.

"Also I don't think the UN has approved France going in to remove Qadaffi- yet."

And yet the French have been very open about that being their ultimate goal. Is the U.N. considering sanctions? Protesting in any way?

" While it would be naive to think that is not ultimately the goal we are still on step #1 on a long walk."

But the president said this would be over in days. Are you saying the president is lying?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Ah, the last desperate gasp. Virtually everything you've posted on this topic in the past couple of days has turned out to be dead wrong, and I'm the 'troll' because I called you on it. What, you're not even going to try your usual pedantism before just skipping to the 'troll' accusation? I'm almost disappointed.

Steve Jacob 3 years, 9 months ago

I have not heard the question asked yet, but why Libya? We have not stepped into African wars before, like Rwanda.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

Somalia, 1993. Didn't we get punched in the nose in that Black Hawk Down incident?

yankeevet 3 years, 9 months ago

Hoorah; well said...............killem all; let god sort em out......

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

Certainly not a gamer so the kill/death ration means nothing to me in that context. I did look up the Somali casualties in Wikipedia. Their multiple sources put Somali losses at anywhere from 133 to several hundred with injuries at anywhere from hundreds to thousands. (many sources giving widely different numbers) But my answer was to the post that we don't get involved in African conflicts. We did.

TheStonesSuck 3 years, 9 months ago

Libya shouldn't have been talking smack. It seems odd that, at the push of a button, we can completely destroy another country's defense capabilities.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

The most important question right now of these countries now pounding Qaddafi's war machine is why they helped him create in the first place?

But that same question applied to Iraq and Saddam, as well.

And why are the despots in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, (also well supplied with American and European arms) not also getting the same treatment?

TheYetiSpeaks 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, bozo....but you're absolutely right. Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Darfur? Bahrain? Myanmar/Burma? Heck, why not Mexico? ...and on, and on, and on....

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Why Libya and not Egypt?"

Maybe this:

"After 18 days of angry protests, Mr. Mubarak resigned and turned over all power to the military on Feb. 11, 2011, ending his 30 years of autocratic rule "

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html

TheStonesSuck 3 years, 9 months ago

cuz they know how to take the help, and then shut up about it.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"The most important question right now of these countries now pounding Qaddafi's war machine is why they helped him create in the first place?

But that same question applied to Iraq and Saddam, as well."

That explains all the russian weaponry gaddafi and hussein had doesn't it?

ralphralph 3 years, 9 months ago

O-bomb-a issues remake of of the Pablo Cruise (missile) classic, "I go to Rio" ...

When Gadhafi, When Gahhafi disses me, I go to Rio ... de Janeiro.

I go wild and then, I have to do the samba, And La Bomb-a!

When Gadhafi, When Gahhafi disses me, I go to Rio ... de Janeiro.

When Sarkozy, When Sarkozy smiles at me, I'm a salsa fella! When Sarkozy smiles at me, Those subs light up the night, And I'm free at last ... What a BLAST!

.... Welcome to the new level of failure.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

It's embarrassing when your commandeer in chief is such a coward that Europe has to practically beg him help fight one of our own enemies.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

If it is in our interest to go at all, we should go immediately with or without the blessing or help of the UN, the EU or The Arab League.

Once upon a time, America had leaders with the guts to make such decisions. All we have now is an appeaser that has turned America into a puppet of the UN and the Arab League.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Once upon a time... that is exactly how fairy tales begin.

One would have to live in a fantasy world to believe the U.S. can just do whatever it wants whenever it wants without involving the rest of the world. Claiming we should just ignore the UN and the rest of the world is ... well, ... to put it nicely, it is impractical.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Libya: The Wearingly Familiar Odor of Regime Change First it was Saddam. Then Gaddafi. Now There's a Vacancy for the West's Favorite Crackpot Tyrant by Robert Fisk

"So we are going to take "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians of Libya, are we? Pity we didn't think of that 42 years ago. Or 41 years ago. Or... well, you know the rest. And let's not be fooled by what the UN resolution really means. Yet again, it's going to be regime-change. And just as in Iraq – to use one of Tom Friedman's only memorable phrases of the time – when the latest dictator goes, who knows what kind of bats will come flying out of the box? One thing we can do is spot the future Gaddafis and Saddams we are breeding right now - the future torture-chamber sadists. (Getty; EPA)

And after Tunisia, after Egypt, it's got to be Libya, hasn't it? The Arabs of North Africa are demanding freedom, democracy, liberation from oppression. Yes, that's what they have in common. But what these nations also have in common is that it was us, the West, that nurtured their dictatorships decade after decade after decade. The French cuddled up to Ben Ali, the Americans stroked Mubarak, while the Italians groomed Gaddafi until our own glorious leader (Tony Blair) went to resurrect him from the political dead."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-first-it-was-saddam-then-gaddafi-now-theres-a-vacancy-for-the-wests-favourite-crackpot-tyrant-2246415.html

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Well, bozo, as rarely as I agree with anything you say, at least you're not one of the multitude that's saying Bush shouldn't have, but for Barry it's okay.

50YearResident 3 years, 9 months ago

I heard on TV, Obama said, "this will be over in days, not weeks". Sounds just like what Bush was led to say by his managers.

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

Query: Is Joe Biden dead? Has anyone seen him alive? Or is he in hiding so he won't open his mouth and explain why this is such an poorly thought out move?

Query: How Congress completely surrendered its constitutional power and authority? Where are those wanting to read the constitution? So now we've surrendered our sovereignty to the UN?

Query: do we plan to invade other Middle Eastern countries slaughtering their people? Won't that require us offending our buddies?

sr80 3 years, 9 months ago

Rep. Boehner is too busy with the ncaa tourney and Rep. pelosi is busy with remodeling her new federal building,that is why Congress isn't involved in this decision.

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

I agree, except we do not even know who "the other side," is, do we? I am sure there are as many foreign fighters on the rebels' side as there are mercenaries fighting for KaDaffy.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"We really should be sitting this out."

Whether that's true or not, it ain't gonna' happen. We owe the Brits, and they're calling in their marker.

50YearResident 3 years, 9 months ago

I am sure Bush took care of Tony Blair with a huge multi-million dollar (maybe close to a billion) payoff to join him in opperation, kill Saddam. So there is no marker to be called in.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

It's an interesting debate, why this country and not that, why libya and not Egypt. But the answers are seldom easy. Each situation presents itself with a complex set of issues that make each unique. No on has brought up the former Yugoslavia where the U.S. intervened militarily to protect a largely Muslim population. No oil there. Why not Rwanda? maybe because of our recent experience in Somalia (the black hawk down incident). Why not the killing fields in Cambodia? our experience in neighboring Viet Nam.
The U.S. has virtually no interests in Libya. We have provided them with zero military aid in decades. I'm not sure why the U.S. can't be given the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Maybe our's is a purely humanitarian goal. Maybe it has to do with with fact that the overwhelming majority of Libya's cities lie on the coast, making it easier for our navy to strike targets without risk of retaliation. But just to say it's all about oil sounds like an argument a couple of drunks might have in a bar at closing time or a couple of third graders discussing world issues. It's too easy a statement to make when faced with a host of other factors.

TheYetiSpeaks 3 years, 9 months ago

I get what you are saying and I agree with your assessment of the "it's all about oil" crowd. I just want a little consistency. Either we are going to "police" the world, or we are not....Why the picking and choosing? More importantly, can we afford it?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

It's a matter of picking our fights. If you'll remember in Yugoslavia, we did not lose a single person. We bombed them into submission. Since then, it seems like the American people want actions only if they involve very, very limited casualties. We want defined goals and objectives. But if history has taught us anything, it's that war is messy. We made what we considered to be the best decisions with the best information available at the time, only to have history bite us in the butt. For every example at failed nation building, there is an example of success. Often, we go into these things hoping for the best, only to find out that the result was far from what we hoped for. Many times, our choices are either very bad, or very very bad.
No, we cannot be the policeman of the world and enter every conflict. Nor can we sit on our hands and do nothing. I hope Obama makes all the bests decisions for the U.S., as I hoped for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"'It's an interesting debate, why this country and not that, why libya and not Egypt. But the answers are seldom easy. Each situation presents itself with a complex set of issues that make each unique."

"It's a matter of picking our fights."

Gee, that's almost word for word the argument many people on the right - including myself - got laughed at for using when the liberals were screaming 'Why Iraq and not Rwanda, or Cambodia, or wherever?

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

They did. They have weapons and armed forces from the US, France, Italy and Great Britain. It is bad juju that the Arab Leaque promised to help, but then backed out as soon as the operation began. Makes you wonder if they lured the West into this conflict?

sr80 3 years, 9 months ago

President Obama is about as tough as those powder puff thingies on top of a dandelion !!!!

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 9 months ago

This will end badly. The Arab League is already backing out now that the rubber has hit the road. Laugh if you wish, but we should have allowed - insisted - on Europe (particularly Italy) and Arab nations run this one while we provide logistical support. Let the European countries earn their keep for once, we've got enough on our plate.

igby 3 years, 9 months ago

This action is the begining of the fall of europe. France, will be destroyed just like .. Nostradamus predicted.

sr80 3 years, 9 months ago

When did France become anything that resembled something to be destroyed!!! they are no more scarier than kuwait !!!

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

Dennis Kucinich is not happy with Obama for striking Libya without Congressional approval. He's calling for articles of impeachment. At least he is consistent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

Fact check: Kucinich is not suing the government, he is suing a private business owner.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

With all these Bush comparisons flying around on this thread, just remember, we didn't just invade the wrong country. This was more like the Gulf War to stop the invasion of Kuwait, only this was an all out attack on Libya's own people. Had Libya acted up and we then bombed Lithuania, then the comparisons with Bush would be justified.

As Americans, let us hope that the bombs bring about the end of Gadhafi's reign, that those pushing the social uprising come together to form a cohesive government run by the people and, most importantly, that our American troops come home safe and sound.

Oh, and Obama must also return his Peace Prize. Sorry.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Don't tell me you are upset that the First Lady is telling kids to eat their veggies. Please Tom, you can't be that driven by your hate of the first family to think it a bad idea to tell children to eat their veggies. That is just silly.

labmonkey 3 years, 9 months ago

Didn't H.W. Bush extoll children to eat brocoli?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"With all these Bush comparisons flying around on this thread, just remember, we didn't just invade the wrong country. This was more like the Gulf War to stop the invasion of Kuwait, only this was an all out attack on Libya's own people."

So, bea, if Obama is justified in using the armed forces of the United States to attack a foreign country (who did not attack us) and kill its citizens because they have a tyrant who's killing his own people, why, again, was it not okay for for Bush to use the armed forces of the United States to attack a foreign country (who did not attack us) and kill its citizens because they have a tyrant who's killing his own people?

Oh, forgot - 'But ... but ... but ... but that's different!'

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

The difference? Seriously? Okay, simply put, there wasn't a social uprising taking place in Iraq where the people were being bombed by airplanes by their leader when we invaded. The rebels in Libya are now asking for our help. Did this happen in Iraq during Bush Jr.'s time in office? Was there an uprising of the people against Hussein and a request for our help that led Bush to send in troops in Iraq?

You see, the differences really do matter in situations like this.

So I ask, instead of crying "But ... but ... Bush!", I just want to know, do you support Obama's actions of bombing Gadhafi's military positions in Libya? Or, do you think we shouldn't be involved even though we were asked by the people of Libya to get involved?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, Saddam did bomb his own people and dropped deadly gas on them. The Kurds were and still are a part of Iraq. There may still be other differences, but I don't think that one is valid.
There were popular uprisings against Saddam, some that we encouraged right after the first gulf war. However, we did not follow up and remove him because several countries in the area, notably Saudi Arabia, were reluctant for a total collapse. They feared Iran would benefit from the ensuing anarchy. While no one can doubt that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in a total mess over there, no one can say what the situation would have been had we not invaded. More killing of Kurds. Suppression amongst Shiite and Sunni. Another war with Iran, the last resulting in one million casualties. Scud missiles fired into Israel with unknown response.
Yes, it's a bloody mess. But only someone with a really good crystal ball can say that it's worse now than it would have been had we done nothing. And it will take that same crystal ball to tell how this conflict in Libya will turn out. Anyone that has such a ball, please call the President immediately.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

"Actually, Saddam did bomb his own people and dropped deadly gas on them."

True. However, this isn't the reason we went into Iraq, now is it? If it is, it sure took a really long time to get around to it. If our reasons were to stop his killing of his own civilians, immediately after the Gulf War would have been the time to act. We didn't.

Also true, we cannot accurately say what the world would be if we did one thing but not another. The whole butterfly effect comes into play. However, we can look at the results of our actions -- a prolonged war with thousands of Americans killed and many thousands more Iraqi civilians killed, a hotbed for terrorist activity and training, a loss of opportunity to focus our attention and resources in Afghanistan, and countless dollars added to the deficit. While I can't prove it, I'm guessing this is worse than had we not invaded Iraq.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

You may be right about guessing that we chose incorrectly and the situation is worse than if we had done nothing. Really, I have no idea. I was just highlighting the unknown whenever we intervene, or choose not to intervene. What I do hope and believe is that our leaders of both political parties are making decisions they believe to be in our best interests. History will prove them correct or not. The one thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is less comfortable than the one I'm sitting in. I wish Obama the best, as I did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Okay, simply put, there wasn't a social uprising taking place in Iraq where the people were being bombed by airplanes by their leader when we invaded."

Correct. Kurds were never gassed from the air and there aren't mass graves left over from the uprising in the south of Iraq. Also, it isn't true that Iraq was violating the UN-imposed no fly zone by firing at our airplanes.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Are you arguing that the situations of Iraq and Libya are identical?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies… "Are you arguing that the situations of Iraq and Libya are identical? "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

Obama offered a string of reasons for committing to military action.

"Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people [check]," he said. "Many thousands could die [check]. A humanitarian crisis would ensue [check]. The entire region could be destabilized [check], endangering many of our allies and partners [check]. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered [?]. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun [check]."

So, bea, the sole difference that you're clinging to is that you, personally, didn't hear the Kurds screaming for help when Hussein was gassing them? Thanks for demonstrating so clearly what a hypocritical, partisan hack you are.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I'll quote vertigo from above, since he put it so well: "Do you not see a difference between invading a country based on a lie and without UN approval versus a UN sanctioned no fly zone in which the acts of aggression didn't initiate from a foreign nation but rather from within that nation itself?"

Sorry, it isn't about being partisan. You, on the other hand? Why don't you tell us why you aren't supporting Obama.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"The difference? Seriously? Okay, simply put, there wasn't a social uprising taking place in Iraq where the people were being bombed by airplanes by their leader when we invaded. The rebels in Libya are now asking for our help. Did this happen in Iraq during Bush Jr.'s time in office? Was there an uprising of the people against Hussein and a request for our help that led Bush to send in troops in Iraq?"

Why don't you ask the Kurds, bea? If you can find any that weren't gassed, that is.

So, the difference is that the Libyan rebels, by your own admission, initiated the aggression. So the Kurds, who were incapable of fighting back against Hussein, weren't worthy of intervention, in your eyes, because they were being murdered for nothing. What a great humanitarian you are, bea.

"I just want to know, do you support Obama's actions of bombing Gadhafi's military positions in Libya?"

I have no problem with it at all (other than the fact that, like a true liberal, he seems to see our role as following someone else's directives), bea, because unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite. Nice attempt at distraction, but you didn't answer my question (as usual): If it's okay for Obama to intervene militarily to depose a tyrant murdering his own people, why do you and your ilk vilify Bush for doing the exact same thing? Other than the obvious, that is - that Bush is a Republican.

Steve Jacob 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't think it will end in days, not without ground troops. And the European's will be the ones taking the possible terrorism hits for this.

The absolute worst part is Iran thinking "see what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons" Gadhafi did and a few years later they are being bombed.

And finally, I don't want to be mean, but speaqking about Somalia, would you kill 2,000 Gadhafi troops if you knew it would cost 19 American soldiers lives? I would not.

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

How do we know Gadhafi does not have nuclear weapons?

At any rate, we know he has mustard gas, and possibly biological weapons.

labmonkey 3 years, 9 months ago

Let the EU take care of this. It will be they who will suffer if this is not resolved. Europe will see the millions of refugees. Europe will possibly receive the terrorist attacks. European nations need to be the ones sending groud troops if it comes to that, and Europe needs to fit the bill. We can shoot some cruise missiles so we can say we are helping out our allies, but leave it at that and let someone else do the heavy hitting for once.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

We waited for Europe to intervene in Yugoslavia. We encouraged them to settle the mess that was in their own backyard. They fiddled while civilians were slaughtered. Eventually, we intervened. Like it not, Europe does not speak with one voice and seems to be paralyzed when confronted with the need for a decisive response. Europe, like the U.N., is a wonderful debating society. But if action is needed, each individual nation has to choose it's own course.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Some of the larger massacres happened well after the no-fly zone was established there. Sadly, the same can, and probably will, happen in Libya.

jmadison 3 years, 9 months ago

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

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

Sen Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe, Dec 20, 2007

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

whatupdown 3 years, 9 months ago

This is why everybody wants nukes, needs nukes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

DeaconBlue

I disagree-- efficiency and conservation are the main components of a sustainable energy future, with renewables and cogeneration the primary components of future energy production.

While I believe that natural gas will be important, as well, the optimism over greatly increased reserves overlooks the very nasty environmental effects of fracking-- unless those problems can be resolved, millions of square miles of land may become nearly uninhabitable for humans, which is a pretty high cost for supposedly cheap gas.

The attack on Libya is most certainly about the oil, and most of it goes to Europe. Egypt has no oil to speak of, but their military has very many close ties to the US military and the military industrial complex-- something Qaddafi lacks. So for Europe, an ongoing civil war there is not as good an option as taking him down.

Of course Obama's a patsy for billionaires-- he's a mainstream politician, and they're all either active patsies, or trying to become one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

I was optimistic that he'd be an improvement over Bush, and to that extent, he hasn't disappointed. But clearing such a low bar is hardly anything to cheer about.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

I think they're perfectly happy if dissatisfaction is displayed in the form of riots-- they can deal with that with brute force, something they're well-equipped to do.

But their class warfare tactics in Wisconsin haven't elicited anything close to a riot, and I know that Walker and the rest of the Republicans would be happier if a riot did take place so that they could call out the National Guard and bust some teachers' heads.

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

Doesn't matter if we should or shouldn't. We're involved now, and I expect conservatives to fall in line and support our military (as they griped that liberals wouldn't do in the past).

Personally, I feel like we need to stop intervening in that region of the world, as we're playing into the image of the aggressor despite our stated intentions.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

But we do support our military, llama. Funny, though - I don't seem to remember when YOU 'fell in line' in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

What do you mean? I rarely post about Iraq and Afghanistan. We're there and we have an obligation to clean up at this point. I don't know why you're so obsessed with trying to discredit anything I say. Sorry if I deeply upset you at some point.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't recall him NOT supporting the troops. Criticizing the reasons for being in Iraq is far from not supporting the troops.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Can you tell a difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or are they the same battle in your mind? Is it not possible to feel one is justified and the other isn't?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

The chances of any sitting president not allowing an elected incoming president from taking office are zero. The Second Amendment, for all it's flaws, is precisely what would prevent such a scenario. Some conspiracy nuts suggested Bush would employ that strategy. It never happened and NEVER will. Zero chance.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

The corporate power structure that controls the US government also sets the limits within which the president can operate, which explains why Obama has governed in a very center to center-right fashion. They know that any incoming president will have the same limits to their power, so there will be no coups allowed against them by the outgoing president.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

LOL, the race card is played. That is the most lame attempt at distraction a leftist has played this week.

Fail.

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

interesting observation. Reinforces my fear that the US (Hillary, in particular), and NATO have been duped by the Arabe Leaque into removing Qadaffi for them.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

It reinforces the notion that no collection of nations, be it the African Union, Arab League, Nato, or the U.N. speak with a single unified voice. When the s**t hits the fan, every country acts in accordance with it's own best interests.

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

Okay, then what will the US gain from this? I don't see where any of this is in the best interest of the US.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 9 months ago

Those on the radical/left fringe will say our involvement is to protect multi-nationalist corporate interests. Those on the radical/right fringe will say we're in it prevent radical Islamists from occupying a strategically important country that could then export the radicalism throughout the region. Being neither of those, I'd say that as a member of the world community, it's in our best interest to prevent the radicalism of either gaining on the other. It's a delicate balance. Rest assured, you will get the replies of the radicals on both sides momentarily.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Liberal Democrats in the House are mighty pissed off that Obama didn't consult Congress at all before launching these strikes.

Kucinich even floated the idea of its being an impeachable offense-- but he attempted to file articles of impeachment against Bush, et al, for similar actions, so he's at least consistent.

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

Ron Paul was prescient. View his speech on the House floor, March 10, 2011

Godot 3 years, 9 months ago

I guess my link did not work. YouTube Ron Paul, "Leave Libya Alone"

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

How's that hopenchange working out for you?

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Better than the Mavericky-Winky-Winky thing could have. Thanks for asking.

BigPrune 3 years, 9 months ago

Is this act of aggression against a sovereign state legal?

I guess this proves that Obama is not a Muslim, right? :)

heygary 3 years, 9 months ago

Always a treat to watch the Lawrence Snuggle-bunnies play arm-chair quarterback with the latest world crisis. Please keep in mind, the leaders you consistently second guess better be thinking about 25 years in advance if we hope to maintain an unobstructed presence on the world stage.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

In other news: "...Presidential candidate Barack Obama, December 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. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action." So Obama agrees with Dennis Kucinich that his authorization of military action against Libya was unconstitutional. Presumably he disagrees with Kucinich's suggestion that he should therefore be impeached..."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028647.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I find in funny to see all the conservatives up in arms about this. What a bunch of hypocricy.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

bea, Dear Leader's own words are indicting him. He must have figured his drones would have forgotten all that.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

See, you've already forgotten. BTW, I'm personally not up in arms about taking Mommar out of the picture. He should have been pushing up the flowers a long time ago. It's all the dithering coming from 1600 Penn Ave ( when the Mope in Chief can tear himself off the golf course to actually sit in the Oval Office ) that I'm concerned about.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies…

"I'll quote vertigo from above, since he put it so well: "Do you not see a difference between invading a country based on a lie and without UN approval versus a UN sanctioned no fly zone in which the acts of aggression didn't initiate from a foreign nation but rather from within that nation itself?""

Besides the fact that I already addressed vertigo's comment above, another nice try at distraction, bea, but no cookie.

I listed the justifications that Obama gave for this military intervention. Every one of those conditions was present in Iraq, with the possible exception of an explicit request for help. Maybe the Kurds didn't think it was necessary to beg us for help, since their uprising was something we ASKED them to do. Twist and spin all you want, bea: You're defending an action based on a justification that you vehemently criticized for no other reason than because the person giving it this time is a Democrat.

"Sorry, it isn't about being partisan. You, on the other hand? Why don't you tell us why you aren't supporting Obama."

I know reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, bea, but really:

bea: "I just want to know, do you support Obama's actions of bombing Gadhafi's military positions in Libya?"

my response: "I have no problem with it at all"

Now, bea, what part of "I have no problem with it at all" did you have trouble with?

"I find in funny to see all the conservatives up in arms about this. What a bunch of hypocricy."

I guess you would have trouble, since you're not capable of understanding what we're "up in arms" about, bea. See, we're not "up in arms" about the military intervention. What we're "up in arms" about is the lying hypocrites, starting with the current resident of the oval office, all the way down to his fawning lemmings - like you - who blindly accept the justification being used for that intervention, after railing for years against another such intervention where every one of those conditions also existed.

As for the 'approval' of the U.N., bea - you seriously are going to justify your own hypocrisy because it's validated by the biggest collection of hypocrites on the face of the planet? It wasn't okay in Iraq, but is now, because the French gave us their permission? BTW, since you evidently haven't been keeping up, the Arabs are already backing out, because it turns out they were lied to, and the current action isn't what they signed on for. So you can scratch that off your list of differences.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't see the situations as one and the same of our invasion and prolonged ground war in Iraq and our current bombing of Libya. I just don't see them that way. So call me all the names you want, that doesn't make what you say accurate. None of this is because Obama is a Democrat. It is the situation. I have criticized Obama when I felt he was doing the wrong thing, so get past your party obsession already. Otherwise, how could I ever have been in support of Bush's invasion of Afghanistan? Bush is a Republican, is he not?

I'm sorry that you appear incapable of separating the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the situations between Iraq and Libya. Once you start to look at the actual situations as they played out / are playing out, then maybe you can see how someone could support one but not the other. Maybe not. Either way, I do support the troops asked to answer the call of their nation.

Now go ahead, call me some more names. It is always such a grown-up thing to do.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"I don't see the situations as one and the same of our invasion and prolonged ground war in Iraq and our current bombing of Libya. I just don't see them that way."

Well, it's early yet. Give it ten years or so. Although I seriously doubt you'd see the similarities then, either.

"So call me all the names you want, that doesn't make what you say accurate."

Just as your continued denials that you're a hypocrite, and you're repeated sniffles that this situation is different, doesn't make your claims accurate.

"Now go ahead, call me some more names. It is always such a grown-up thing to do."

And I suppose you don't see the irony of calling others out for hypocrisy, then complaining because someone calls you a hypocrite. Brilliant, bea.

Okay, let's take you at your word for a minute, and assume your defense of Obama's justifications are not solely because he's a Democrat. Try answering the question I have already asked you a couple of times, without your usual spin and attempts at distraction: Since every one of the justifications Obama used was present in Iraq, why, again, was our intervention in Iraq not justified?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…

"Maybe because it wasn't sold as such."

So a car salesman tells you that if you buy that car, the women will find you irresistible. Five years later, you love the car. It's comfortable, it has all the accessories you wanted, it's been absolutely dependable, never once failing to start or needing repairs. It gets great gas mileage, yet is big enough to carry everything you need it to. It's the perfect vehicle - except it hasn't improved your attractiveness to the ladies. Of course that, too, is a benefit, since it makes Mrs. vertigo a lot happier. :)

You going to take the car back?

First, as to the WMD: We know Hussein was trying to build WMD. We know that because we were helping him, back when he seemed the better option than Iran. It was up to him to cooperate and prove they were gone. He didn't. Too bad for him.

Second, as to dishonesty: Obama said this was going to be enforcement of a no-fly zone. He said we would be acting in a support role with other countries taking the lead. He said our involvement would be days rather than weeks. It appears he slightly misrepresented all that. And that was all after the fact. Unlike Bush, he didn't even try to sell it to Congress or the electorate before he started shooting.

Third, you mentioned on the other thread that your posts are meant to be taken in the present time. So are mine. As of today, if you accept Obama's justifications for intervention, how is it NOT justification for intervention in Iraq, where every one of those conditions was present?

"You seem to forget that incident occured in 1988. About 3 years before the Persian Gulf war and 15 years before Iraqi Freedom. If it was of such pressing concern in your mind that we needed to act, why then did it take us 15 years to?"

Well, ya' know, I wasn't president in 1988. But I just love the way all you liberals want it both ways. I absolutely think we should have kept going in '91. Hussein should have been crushed then. But the French - and the Arabs - said that's not what they signed on for, and heaven forbid we should take unilateral action against world opinion. Make up your mind, will you? Was Bush-I wrong for not going after Hussein and risking the world's disapproval, or was Bush-II wrong because he did?

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

You seem upset because some of us see Iraq and Libya as two entirely different situations that require different responses.

If it helps, I will be upset if we send in ground troups and attempt to occupy Libya. Does that make you feel better?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"If it helps, I will be upset if we send in ground troups and attempt to occupy Libya."

Gee, that's a huge surprise. Isn't that an inherent trait in liberals - 'I support it, but only until it starts costing something?'

So to put it another way, bea, you don't mind a little intervention, just a big one. (And you don't seem to object if it escalates beyond a little intervention for us, as long as it's French or British troops doing the heavy lifting.) That is not a difference based on principle, but merely a matter of degree.

Then again, you'd have to have principles in order to differ on them.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Then I guess you would be happy with American getting into another, never-ending ground war? Um, okay. I wouldn't.

Ouch, you said I don't have principles. boo hoo, that hurt my feelings.

Will you ever attempt to argue a point like a grown up without resorting to petty little put downs? I'm just curious, because you seem incapable of doing so.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Then I guess you would be happy with American getting into another, never-ending ground war?"

Time isn't infinite. Inquiry: is a person less dead because they were killed by a cruise missile instead of a 5.56MM bullet?

Tell us the truth. You think it's OK to kill people in the Mideast because the guy you voted for won the last election, don't you? If nothing else, at least be honest with yourself.

Personally. I'm disgusted with his half-measures as usual. He's a day late (three weeks, actually) and a dollar short of doing the job right. If it's worth doing, it should be done completely.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I keep telling you the truth, but you can't handle that there are people who don't think just like you. I honestly don't care one drop as to who is in office with regard to how I react to this situation. I voted for Obama because he was by far the best candidate. If someone runs against him who is better in the next election, then I will vote for that person. If you don't believe me, so what. I just ask, how could I have possibly felt our going into Afghanistan was the correct thing to do? Bush was in office then, and Bush is a Republican. How could I possibly have agreed with a Republican? Sorry, but I'm not living to your stereotype.

To think that Obama should have sent bombs in before getting backing from the rest of the world is ridiculous. It isn't America's job to be the world's police without say from other nations.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

Nah, we're just laughing at your hypocrisy.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

So you see the Iraq and Libya situations as one and the same as well? Stunning.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

Outside of gaddafi not firing missiles at our planes in violation of a cease fire treaty, imposed after he ransacked a neighboring country, yes. I'm not sure gaddafi has gassed his subjects or filled mass graves with protesters either, but he might have.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Okay. You see the Iraq and Libya situations as being rather similar. I don't. I just don't. It has to do with the uprising at this moment (happening in other countries in the region as well) and our being asked to help by the people in that country at this time. We also aren't talking about sending in our ground troops. That makes it different. We are allowing their people to rise and take control of their own government without their being bombed from airplanes by their own military. This is why the cry of liberal hypocrisy is ringing hollow to me. It has nothing to do with who is in office. If it did, then I never would have been in agreement with our going into Afghanistan. I see each - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - as different scenarios. This is why I react and feel different about each one accordingly.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"We also aren't talking about sending in our ground troops. That makes it different."

So we can kill anyone with a bomb that decides what it will hit based on GPS coordinates and it's OK, but if we send soldiers that can identify and choose to either kill a guy carrying an AK or let a little girl go on her way that's bad. Is that what you think?

Nah, you aren't that sick. You're just supporting the guy you voted for. If he sends in ground troops, you'll find a way to justify that too.

On the bright side, I will give you credit for diagreeing with Chavez.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Ground troops mean higher death counts for American soldiers, obviously. Why do you hate our troops so much that you would sacrifice their lives?

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

That's their job. Why do you think they signed on the bottom line?

But anyway, let me get this straight, you think killing people in the Mideast is acceptable as long as we don't risk American lives (disregarding the pilots that get shot down)?

You are starting to sound a little jingoistic. I don't know if I'm impressed or appalled. Which do you think I should be?

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Nota, are you upset because you find yourself agreeing with Obama? Is that really what is going on here?

Go ahead, call me a partisan hack again. It will make you feel better.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Can you do anything but try to distract from what a buffoon you're making of yourself? I don't need to call you anything, bea. Your own words prove your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Kaibab (anonymous) replies… "Just keep trolling away nota, that's what you do best."

troll

1b. Noun A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect. A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

So, let's see, which of us again, bab, posted a personal attack without saying anything about the topic at hand?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

But hey, Kaibabble, this is a big step up for you. How'd you gather up the courage to actually post to a thread instead of your usual charming missives to my inbox?

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Now I'm a buffoon! Oh boy!

So answer the question, are you upset to find yourself agreeing with Obama's actions? You sure appear to be.

Again, I am not dishonest or a hypocrit. I see a major difference between the wars in Iraq and our current bombing of Libya. I'm sorry you don't. I do. That makes me neither dishonest or a hypocrit, no matter how many times you say it.

Now, can we really, really, really try and discuss this like adults? Pretty please? Are you even capable of doing so?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Now, can we really, really, really try and discuss this like adults?"

Sure we can, bea. Why don't you start. What WAS that "major difference", again, the one I keep asking you to explain and you keep ducking the question?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Okay, Whitney or whoever else, I give - what on earth did I say that got that post pulled? There was nothing close to foul language, nothing insulting at all. I'm serious - what criteria do you people use for yanking posts? There was not a single thing in there that violated your TOS.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, hysterical, thanks. And you're right, it most likely wouldn't have stayed posted very long.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"I'll go with "the other one" instead:"

Good one! Still chuckling, not the least because my rather conservative and straight-laced father has been driving those Swedish boxes for more than 40 years, his current one being the wagon version of the one in the ad.

Woulda' loved to see the one you don't think would get past Whitney ...

Aiko 3 years, 9 months ago

showing the true colors again huh??? I knew it would not last...

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Aiko, I sure hope that is aimed at nota. I know I am not the one calling people names or making ridiculous claims that individual's opinions are based only on party loyalty. I'll state my argument and support it as best I can, but when it is met with non-stop name-calling, it does get tiresome.

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies…

"Then I guess you would be happy with American getting into another, never-ending ground war?"

If that's what ends up happening. If liberals lack the conviction (sorry for being redundant) to finish a war, then they shouldn't start one. Is there just one of you libs who understands that lobbing a hundred or so cruise missiles and attacking ground forces from attack jets isn't something you do for a couple of days, then pop a cool one and go home? Has it penetrated your head, just a tiny little bit, that this is exactly how Iraq started, by kicking butt for a few days, then packing up and leaving before the job was done, leaving the Iraqi opposition to twist in the wind? That the 'never-ending ground war' might not have been necessary if the United States and its so-called allies had finished the job and removed Hussein in '91?

"Ouch, you said I don't have principles. boo hoo, that hurt my feelings."

Your posts over the years have made it adequately apparent that you lack the latter as much as the former. And there's no reason for your feelings (if you had them) to be hurt by a statement of fact.

"Will you ever attempt to argue a point like a grown up without resorting to petty little put downs?"

Gee, I don't know, bea - will you ever enter the argument instead of your usual passive-aggressive drivel? Another nice attempt at distraction, so let me remind you of the question for what, the third time? I listed for you the liar-in-chief's justifications for interfering in the affairs of a foreign country and launching a military attack on a country that did not attack us, and every one of those conditions was also present in Iraq. So why, again, is this operation justified if the attack on Iraq was not?

And before you try 'the U.N. gave us permission this time,' Russia and China did not vote for the resolution, they abstained, and are already grumbling about the nature of the military action being taken. The same goes for Germany, a NATO member and ally, who likely wouldn't even exist as a western block democracy if it weren't for the United States and the other major coalition members. The Arab League gave their approval and then sat back, with only two countries actually participating, and they're already grumbling about France's call for regime change, and over who's going to be in charge when the United States runs away this time.

So what was that difference again, the one you claim is not solely that this is Obama and not Bush?

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Love these comments in response to MSNBC's poll on whether or not they support the attack:

"We do not need another 'endless war'."

"$Hundreds of millions spent in Libya would better be used for creating jobs here."

"It's all about oil. Say what he will, Obama did this for oil. Not to protect anyone."

"We should keep out of the internal affairs of other countries. We have enough problems to solve at home."

"It's all about oil. We don't need a third mid-east war."

"Its a civil war. Its none of our business."

"We should not be in someone else's civil war. We are broke and our soldiers are tired of constant deployment!"

"Why would we want to spend tax money to help them - they dislike us for even trying."

"I am so tired of us sticking our nose in other countries affairs when we cannot seem to handle our own problems"

"I support a Congressional declaration of war. Not the exe. branch meddling."

"we need to spend more energy working on domestic issues and not playing super-cop of the world"

"it is not useful to try to police the entire world and intervene in every country. real solution is invest in alternataive energy sources."

Why, even the talking points of the opposition are word-for-word! Hope they haven't disposed of those protest signs, looks like they can all be recycled.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Did Reagan start a war when he bombed Libya? I recall bombs being dropped and us NOT going in to invade. How did this happen, since you claim it can't?

This is also NOT how Iraq started. That is an absolute false statement. There was always the intention of sending in troops immediately after the initial bombings on Iraq, and you know this to be true.

"liar in chief" -- I didn't realize we were talking about Bush again. (See how cute insulting names to presidents are? Easy too. Perhaps I should start to trade in easy insults as well. They are, you know, so easy.)

I already told you why I see this as different from Iraq. 2:54 pm -- Yesterday! Read the statements you have already dismissed. I'm not going to bother repeating them. Disagree with me if you like because, believe it or not, I really don't expect everyone to think just like me. I also don't just dismiss those who don't. You should try this some time.

The only thing I don't quite understand is why exactly do you keep harping about it if you agree with Obama's approving missles to be dropped in Libya too? Are bombs being dropped on a country really only about what insults you think you can throw at "liberals"? Is that what you take away from this event? It sure appears that way.

Oh, and ouch, you picked on my principles and my feelings in your last post. boo hoo

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Did Reagan start a war when he bombed Libya? I recall bombs being dropped and us NOT going in to invade. How did this happen, since you claim it can't?"

Which do you want me to address first, your lame straw man, or your comparison of apples to oranges?

Did Reagan attack with the intention of destroying the Libyan air defenses for purposes of establishing a no-fly zone to protect Libyan rebel forces? Was it an ongoing operation, or a single punitive air strike, in direct retaliation for murdering American citizens? Did Reagan have Marine attack jets bombing Libyan ground forces, again in support of Libyan rebel forces? Oh, BTW - did the Libyans ask us to attack them then, bea?

Interesting example to bring up, bea. Did the Wikipedia that provided you with your wealth of military history happen to mention that several of the bombers involved in that strike never made it to Libya (not including the ones that were lost)? They had fuel and/or other problems. Seems the trip was at the limits of their ability, taking off from bases in Great Britain and not being allowed to fly over - you guessed it - French airspace.

"This is also NOT how Iraq started. That is an absolute false statement. There was always the intention of sending in troops immediately after the initial bombings on Iraq, and you know this to be true."

Are you referring to round one or round two, bea? Because in either case, you're (as usual) dead wrong. In '91, yes, there were troops massed to follow the air strikes with a ground attack - into Kuwait, which Hussein had attacked and occupied, not into Iraq itself (because, again, the French, among others, balked). If you're talking about the troops in Kuwait waiting to invade following the air strikes in round two, that happened several years after the establishment of the no-fly zones.

I guess this explains a lot about why you see these two situations as different. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[continued]

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

[continued]

""liar in chief" -- I didn't realize we were talking about Bush again. (See how cute insulting names to presidents are? Easy too. Perhaps I should start to trade in easy insults as well. They are, you know, so easy.)"

It wouldn't be anything you haven't said in the past, bea. More of your blatent hypocrisy, as usual. You have called Bush a liar in the past and continue to insist you have never been disrespectful to Obama's predecessor. But if I call your Messiah a liar, that's insulting. Let's see, what was your response when I pointed out you used the term "liar" to refer to Bush? Oh, yeah: Something like 'If someone says something that isn't true, he's a liar.' Obama qualifies, bea. Stop banging your forehead on the ground so hard when you're paying obeisance to him and you might pick up on a couple of them.

"I already told you why I see this as different from Iraq. 2:54 pm -- Yesterday! Read the statements you have already dismissed. I'm not going to bother repeating them."

You mean this: "Was there an uprising of the people against Hussein and a request for our help that led Bush to send in troops in Iraq?"

Um, yes, bea. Your ignorance of fairly recent history is absolutely astounding. The Kurds did indeed rise up against Hussein. They didn't have to ask for our help, bea - we put them up to rebellion! Then, when our so-called allies got cold feet, we left them to twist in the wind, and yes, they were still being murdered wholesale up until the invasion.

It wasn't a matter of me 'dismissing' or 'disagreeing' with what you said, bea. You made a false statement. The so-called difference you pointed to to justify your (and your idol's) hypocrisy doesn't exist. Except in the delusions that support your blind obedience to the almighty Obama.

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Did Reagan start a war when he bombed Libya? I recall bombs being dropped and us NOT going in to invade. How did this happen, since you claim it can't? "

Yes, but he utterly failed to finish the job. Had he finished it then, we wouldn't have the same problem today. GHWB made the same mistake with Hussein and it was left to Dubya to correct the mistake when the opportunity arose. Hopefully Obama will find the courage to correct Reagan's mistake while he has the opportunity.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

So you believe America should occupy yet another nation? Well, that is one option. Not one I agree with, but it is certainly one option. I would prefer allowing the people who asked for our help to finish the job themselves.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

blah blah blah

I hope you really took some time to write this, because I only saw the lies you tell in your last sentence and dismissed the entire thing without bothering to read it. bye, bye nota

Commenting has been disabled for this item.