| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
doh! cross post. | ||
| Sifo |
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/allies-control-of-airspace-in-libya-puts-qaddafi-s-ground-forces-at-risk.html
Great planning! "We sure bombed the hell out of those Arabs! Now what should we do?"
Didn't BO just claim that this wasn't about forcing Qaddafi from power, but about protecting civilians??? Didn't take long for the scope of operations to expand!
Did we really need to provide China an excuse to be pissed at us? This is just going swimmingly! | ||
| Sifo |
Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize Has this ever been done? It sure seems fitting in this case. | ||
| Hootowl |
Man. I am sure tired of tin pot dictators crying imperialism. 'Course, the only reason they do it is because they know the western press eats it up in their eagerness to condemn their own countries. | ||
| Sifo |
A "political steering committee"? Is that really what we are turning control of our military to?  http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/957818-- france-new-political-steering-committee-should-ove rsee-no-fly-zone-over-libya?bn=1 | ||
| Cityxslicker |
look if we are handing out cruise missiles like candy, Somalia could use a few too. | ||
| Blake |
I despise when the Dems report the assertions of enemy spokesmen, liberal no-nothing journalists, communists, or tin-pot dictators like they are fact. I don't like it any better now. You're better than that Sifo. | ||
| Sifo |
I despise when the Dems report the assertions of enemy spokesmen, liberal no-nothing journalists, communists, or tin-pot dictators like they are fact. I don't like it any better now. You're better than that Sifo. I assume you are referring to the "political steering committee" thing. I'm just not sure how the "enemy spokesman" part fits in, unless you are talking about the fact that this comes from the French. If it turns out wrong, then shame on me I guess. It seems to be coming from some pretty mainstream sources at this point and certain meshes with what BO said yesterday about our involvement in command and control lasting days, not weeks. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-say s-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/france-s- juppe-proposes-political-committee-for-libya-missi on.html http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/22/lib ya.coalition.strains/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-says-ne w-political-steering-committee-not-nato-to-oversee -no-fly-zone-over-libya/2011/03/22/ABB2pEDB_story. html If there's something else I threw out there that you think needs correcting, please do so. I enjoy having my understanding of events challenged. In the end we all can have a better understanding of what's going on.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Attack Libya without congress? Not really a problem. ( I admit Sen. John Kerry, traitor, D. being the spokesperson claiming his understanding of the situation is "crystal clear" disturbs me. Kerry says our CURRENT actions are not to remove Gaddafi. I bet that makes Gaddafi feel safer. ) Although Barack's coalition is small, divisive, and has no apparent leadership, Many Presidents have taken unilateral action to save lives, or eliminate a threat, where there is not time to assemble Congress and pitch them. I just don't know if this is one of those times simple Presidential Authority is proper. Not that that matters, this is a very Imperial President. I wouldn't call for his impeachment for bombing Libya. I'm pretty sure that's ok. I would if he is a total screwup and accomplishes nothing except shame, death, suffering, and a more radical Libya than before his actions. The Afghan & Iraq fronts in the Global Jihad, for example. I'm not at all fond of the nations they have become, but both are far better off than with religious zealots, or a secular mass murdering, poison gas using tyrant in charge. I admit that darn near anything would be an improvement over Saddam or the Taliban. For example, the Russian Mafia would be better. I'm still confused about it being ok for OUR Prez. to demand that the sovereign Prez. in Egypt step down, but not the Prez. in Iran, who is demonstrably a much more evil guy. Ask anyone who left either. So... we have a little war. We don't know what the goals are. ( they might even be good. I don't know. I suspect the goal is to get Obama reelected.) We don't know who's in Charge. All I Know for CERTAIN is the goal is NOT to defeat the enemy and win with minimal casualties. NO ONE has claimed that as a goal. That is the ONLY goal and strategy that is, IM not so HO, proper when you go to war. Go big or stay home. I'm disgusted with the thought of another fraking war that is not fought to win. THAT, is an impeachable offense. | ||
| Sifo |
I suspect the goal is to get Obama reelected. I would tend to think the same thing, but I'm having a difficult time figuring out how this benefits him. Anyone else for that matter. All I Know for CERTAIN is the goal is NOT to defeat the enemy and win with minimal casualties. NO ONE has claimed that as a goal. BO is careful to never use the word "victory" when talking about any conflict we are involved in. Quite disturbing. | ||
| Jon |
This is a very tough arena in which to succeed. The islamic befuddlement factor. The real underlying and largley unreported factor is the Shiite Suni conflict. And then there's Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood. They would like to see the revolutions take on Islamic faces rather than democratic ones. So we really can't stop with Tomohawks and Nato. We have to do long term guidance counseling. I hope these rebels really do want democracy...or at least a secular government. Or this could really turn out bad. Real bad. We need to wrap up phase one and move on to phase 2...with the rest of the sane and friendly world spending their money and lives. We've already got enough to do in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. | ||
| Blake |
Sifo, The following seem less than reputable/reliable to me; some of it is just meaningless blathering... military analysts have questioned what the coalition will do next. The statements by China and Putin are just as dubious. | ||
| Blake |
It doesn't seem unreasonable to keep the objective under wraps for a time before announcing it to the enemy. | ||
| Cowboy |
caution--caution--caution The muslim BrotherHood Is deeper and wider spread than you/we may think. | ||
| Sifo |
Blake thanks for clarifying that. I see the point you're making and agree to a point. As to the point about the coalition not being sure what to do next, I think there's evidence that does point to that. Even on the opening day of combat it seems that some coalition members were pushing beyond the stated goal of a no-fly zone, attacking ground to ground weapons. Even a dubious source can be right some times. Dennis Kucinich even gets it pretty straight on this. Time will tell on the points you raise. | ||
| Aesquire |
Teddy bears. The Palestinian propaganda corps places teddy bears in strategic places in photos of devastation to get sympathy from the ignorant. ( with today''s press, that's most people ) The devastation is usually caused by the palestinians, but blamed, always on the evil Jews. Also prepare for wailing old women. The same one can be seen in video from various parts of the middle east. ( gaza, west bank, same week, same professional wailer ) We KNEW Gaddafi put antiaircraft weapons on civilian buildings on purpose for propaganda. If you live anyplace the local dictator is likely to incur the wrath of the U.S. .....and there is an antiaircraft gun on the roof of your apartment, or the hospital across the street, congratulations! You have been selected by the Glorious Leader to be a civilian casualty. Have innocents died? Sure. It's war. No matter what the State Dept. or one of Barack's flacks tell you. | ||
| Blake |
I've actually found Dennis Kucinich to be pretty darn refreshingly honest. I don't agree with his socialistic views, but he's one Democrat who is not afraid to admit what he believes. | ||
| Blake |
Drudge had this on their page today... | ||
| Blake |
Other Drudge top of page leading headlines and more...
| ||
| Crusty |
Oh, who gives a shit? Bush lied to the World, the U.N. and the American people about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, and everybody bought it. So, we invaded a country that was no threat to us. I didn't hear anybody screeching impeachment. Now, we're assisting rebels who want to overthrow a Dictator who has killed many innocent Americans, and people are talking Impeachment? A lot of people are f*cked in the head. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Bush lied to the World" Since you obviously believe that, it is not a lie. It's still wrong. Now apply the same logic to Bush's assertion that Iraq had WMD. Bush believed there were WMD (since their destruction couldn’t be accounted for and the weapons inspectors were being locked out). He was wrong. So was every intelligence agency in Europe. Doesn't make him a liar. "I didn't hear anybody screeching impeachment." Then you weren't listening. | ||
| Pwnzor |
What happened to the last democrap we impeached? Ohhhh yeahh.... he just stayed and finished his term anyway. | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm certainly not screaming impeachment. Libya is a known sponsor of terrorism. Q (G, K, whatever) adaffi is a terrorist. The President is right to take him out and seek approval from Congress later. I'm not certain that he needs to really. If the action is over before the grace period runs out, there's no need. Besides, Congress already funds the war on terror, so authorization for killing terrorists is implied. I know we're only there to "protect civilians" but come on...we're bombing places the jackass is likely to be...that smacks of an attempt to take him out. There is no publicly declared "mission" to take him out because if we don't, it'll be seen as a failure by our gotcha politicians. | ||
| Sifo |
If I may expand on the point I was meaning to make... It really had to do with this statement... "military analysts have questioned what the coalition will do next". If the source was deemed questionable I will back it with a more credible source...
Clearly we are doing this without a clear picture of where we are heading. The question of civilian causalities is unusual in this case. Under normal war circumstances (if there is such a thing) civilian causalities are an unfortunate unintended consequence. The classic collateral damage that anti-war folks will jump to every time, teddy bears and all. This, as unfortunate as it is, becomes unavoidable to achieve certain military objectives. When your ONLY stated objective is protection of civilian lives, unintended civilian casualties become very central to the debate of achieving your military objective of protecting civilians. No doubt they have been set up by their government to die for propaganda purposes, but it really does us little good to kill them in order to save them. That just turns us into the bad guys. Oh, who gives a shit? Bush lied to the World, the U.N. and the American people about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, and everybody bought it. So, we invaded a country that was no threat to us. I didn't hear anybody screeching impeachment. Now, we're assisting rebels who want to overthrow a Dictator who has killed many innocent Americans, and people are talking Impeachment? A lot of people are f*cked in the head. Crusty, is that really your defense of BO entering illegally into a war? To justify it with something from decades ago. Has BO even made that connection himself yet? I haven't heard of it. You are applying motive to BO's actions that are unsupportable. That does happen when you defend the indefensible though. | ||
| Sifo |
The President is right to take him out and seek approval from Congress later. I'm not certain that he needs to really. If the action is over before the grace period runs out, there's no need. Besides, Congress already funds the war on terror, so authorization for killing terrorists is implied. Hootowl, I can't disagree with that statement more strongly. Your assertion that it's the right thing to do to take out Gaddafi may well be on target. The way it's being done is in violation of our laws however. You are referring to the War Powers Act of 1973 that allows a president a window of time to act quickly to a threat that can't wait for a formal declaration of war from Congress. This action fails to be legal on 2 points though. 1) Libya represented no imminent threat to the US that required quick action. 2) The War Powers Act still requires the President to address Congress to explain what is being done and why. | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't know. We recently found out that the man was personally responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Who knows what else he's planning or supporting? What does the President know that we don't? He gets an intelligence brief every morning, I don't. If our goal is to take Q out, I consider it to part of our ongoing struggle against international terrorism. If it isn't...well...I got nothing. How do we know he hasn't addressed Congress? Most of those types of meetings are classified and done in private with leaders of each house. I just think we're all a bit eager to pounce on BO just because we may disagree with his politics. I detested it when the left did it to GW, and I detest that it appears that the right is doing it to BO. It isn't helping the country to make political hay with military matters. | ||
| Hootowl |
Historically, the way things are playing out in the press and the way things actually are have been two different things. I'm willing to reserve judgment until more time has passed and more information is available. We're not going to unbomb what has already been bombed. Screaming for impeachment isn't going to stop what is happening. If it turns out to have been illegal, the day of reckoning will come. | ||
| Sifo |
If the objective is to take out Q (or G?) then BO shouldn't say that isn't the objective. He represents the people and is required to let the people know why he is sending into battle. That is the laws that we live by. There is no shades of gray on this point. We know that he hasn't addressed Congress because the members of Congress are screaming about not being addressed. Certainly classified information should not be made public, or even available to Congress, but the fact of addressing Congress is not classified. If there were some imminent threat that just couldn't wait then he really needs to get his butt back to DC to explain it to Congress, not continue his family vacation in South America. Being President has certain responsibilities. Please note that I'm not questioning if the action is right or wrong at this point. That is a complicated question worthy of debate. Right now I'm simply pointing out that the President doesn't have the authority to take this action. This isn't just coming from the right, it's also coming from the left. Like I said earlier, I really hate when I agree with Dennis Kucinich. There is actually bipartisan agreement that this action was done outside of the legal framework. We can argue the wisdom of this action when BO finally makes his case to the people. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, the whole impeachment thing is not being argued by anyone I've seen here. Kucinich, I know, has brought it up, but that's about the only mention of it I've seen. Personally I will go on the record that I think it would be the wrong thing to do based on the facts that we currently know. New facts could change my mind on that, but I don't foresee that happening. | ||
| Macbuell |
This is what happens when you have a President who is afraid to lead. Maybe he should take a poll next time he needs to take a leak to determine if he should sit or stand. |
