G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Forum » Quick Board » Archives » Archive through April 04, 2011 » Obama is a D*MN COWARD. » Archive through March 30, 2011 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 08:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

BO just committed us to nation building in Libya. He claims it will be an international effort, but we've seen that play out before. This cluster f*** is just beginning!

He did say we were going in to protect our vital interests. He didn't say what those interests were though.

So it's fact that we are giving control to NATO? NATO was never formed for this sort of mission. Are all NATO nations on board? I don't think so. NATO was an agreement among members to defend member nations from attack.

BO did confirm that we have been targeting tanks as part of enforcement of the no-fly zone. That's a pretty clear violation of the resolution drafted in the UN.

Let the blood letting continue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Patrick2cents
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 05:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Actually, per the resolution, targeting tanks, ground forces, ships... heck sending in troops is allowed. (not saying that I agree with it)

on the plus side, whenever I sing ...to the shores of Tripoli it will really mean something :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Xdigitalx
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 06:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I want to know what happened to that woman that said she was raped by the Kadafi soldiers. She needs no less than 4 (FOUR) witnesses of the rape (according the shitfukklaw) but if she only gets 3 (THREE) then she is considered a liar!?!?!? And she is to be put to death. THAT my friends is an atrosity!! Hopefully the truth will revealed in a few days.

I admit, I have learned alot these past years about muslims and the Koran and people from the middle east. I don't efing like it one bit. If this is true... this type of publicity should be broadcast all over the world over and over and over. Those who believe in this crap should be ashamed. (as well as those who help them)

They also believe dogs are satan. I can't believe we are actually helping these fkrs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Crusty
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 07:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Let the blood letting continue

+1
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 08:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Actually, per the resolution, targeting tanks, ground forces, ships... heck sending in troops is allowed. (not saying that I agree with it)

I just took a look at the text of the resolution. I believe you may be correct that a passage can be read as you describe. It puts us in a position of close air support, which is not what this action is being sold as at all. Beyond that close air support under the best of conditions can easily lead to friendly fire situations. I can't imagine how you would even attempt it in a situation where you don't have boots on the ground and no coordination with the ground troops being supported.

This isn't the mission that we are being sold and sounds like a recipe for disaster. It also sounds like an open door to far more involvement.

Didn't we get our military into some sort of very limited sort of action back in the 60's where we were just advising or something?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 08:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here's something that actually makes sense with what's going on. U.S. says Libyan rebels may sell oil.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 09:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

No blood for oil!

Silly isn't it? They've been chanting it for years though. You'd think they'd stick to their slogans. But then, consistency isnt' their strong suit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 09:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

No blood for oil!

Silly isn't it? They've been chanting it for years though. You'd think they'd stick to their slogans. But then, consistency isnt' their strong suit.


They did say "We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent".

They are now saying that there's a delay in NATO taking over command and control. What ever happened to this conflict lasting "days, not weeks".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cowboy
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 11:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It was just anounced this morning that a large % of the rebels are Al-caida. dont that just com you right down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 12:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


quote:

that close air support under the best of conditions can easily lead to friendly fire situations




I think it already happened, but the "mainstream media" dropped it like a hot potato...

I thought a group of villagers were going to help (?) the pilot of the downed F-15, and a helicopter gunship was unable to tell if they were friendlies or hostiles, and had to assume the worst.

If it was Bush, it would of course been Abu-Garib all over again. But it's Obama, so its a quickly buried story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)



From his speech, it sounds like Obama is finally embracing the Bush doctrine, preemption. He just made a lot of justifications for it, all of which also applied to Iraq except for the official UN directive part. But Iraq had additional justifications including having invaded and attacked allied nations, broken terms of cease fire, threatened America, cooperated with al qaeda, defied UN resolutions for over ten years.

The Iraqi Kurds and Shia, targets of genocide, certainly were and still are thankful for our intervention there along with that of the rest of the extensive coalition, including Arab states, the UK, and over thirty others.

I don't see rejecting the military option for getting rid of Gadafi as very wise. It it tells ghadafi all he need do is weather the storm, Sadaam 1991 take two.

Saddam did have the world's fourth largest army though. Not sure about Gadafi.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Crackhead
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 12:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Slaughter, Your cartoon is absolutely correct.
I stood on the levy between the french quarter and the Mississippi, and through WTF. We wasted our $ rebuilding without fixing the problem.

FYI: There has to be boots on the ground for some for the weapons to work. The boots are well hidden.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5 iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e426 5b2952651c972f4a5
FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

(AP) – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the 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," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

___

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

___

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


With so many lies involved so quickly you really have to wonder what the real agenda is. Even the AP is asking questions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Macbuell
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Does anyone actually believe we do not have boots on the ground? This has special forces written all over it. I mean, are we to believe a band of rebels with very little training is actually fighting and defeating the Libyan Army? And who is designating the targets? What about radio coordination and the calling in of air strikes? Someone is telling them what to do and showing then how to do it. It might be British or French special forces, but there are boots on the ground.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I think that reference implies something akin to a conventional ground operation, not special forces.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cowboy
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I dont think we need to be concerned with the ground orp. as it dont make a damn who wins or loses we will have to fight the winner. ( we are in a lose--lose possion here)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 01:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

LONDON (AFP)--Libya's opposition Tuesday vowed to work for free and fair elections, as they set out their vision of a democratic state ahead of talks by world powers on the future of the north African country. In a statement issued ahead of the meeting in London, the Transitional National Council representing rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime said it wanted a "modern, free and united state." "We have learnt from the struggles of our past during the dark days of dictatorship that there is no alternative to building a free and democratic society and ensuring the supremacy of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations," the statement said. To this end, it vowed to "guarantee every Libyan citizen of statutory age the right to vote in free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as the right to run for office." The council promised to draft a national constitution establishing legal, political and civil institutions and separating legislative, executive and judicial powers. A free media and freedom to hold demonstrations would be upheld, and political parties, trade unions and other civil groups would be permitted. The council also promised a "constitutional civil state which respects the sanctity of religious doctrine and condemns intolerance, extremism and violence that are manufactured by certain political, social or economic interests." It said it would create "a state that draws strength from our strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality." In reference to Libya's oil reserves which have attracted foreign investment from firms such as BP PLC (BP), the council added that "the interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected." The council, comprising 31 members representing Libya's main cities and towns, is the main body speaking for the rebels although it has only been recognized formally by France and Qatar. Council members haven't been invited to attend the London meeting but envoy Mahmoud Jibril met U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was also due to hold talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron Tuesday.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sayitaintso
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 02:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Blake, I'll believe it when I see it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Macbuell
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 03:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I think that reference implies something akin to a conventional ground operation, not special forces.

You are probably right but to me, boots on the ground mean ANY US Armed Forces Troops, Special Forces included.

If they are a member of the US Armed Forces, they are US troops.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reindog
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 10:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Obama is a tough guy when it comes to unrest in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. When it comes to Syria or Iran, he tacitly supports those regimes which are the heart of the problem in the Middle East.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 10:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Would it be fair at this point to call this the "Obama Doctrine"?

quote:

We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sayitaintso
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 10:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Would it be fair at this point to call this the "Obama Doctrine"?


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
quote:
We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------


In the interest of full disclosure:

Where's the rest of the applicable quote?

Wasn't it something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here)
"we evaluate each case based on the facts of that case and dont try to make one shoe fit all"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 11:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


quote:

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."




http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181- white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-inte rests-in-region

I'm not sure the rest of the quote (though probably accurate for most administrations) makes us look very good. Sounds pretty damn self centered. Not how this KMA was sold at all BTW. I would also argue that there's a lot to be said for consistency and precedence. It's the basis of our legal system instead of the tyranny that we threw off which was also not based on consistency and precedence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sayitaintso
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 11:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I agree, we only seem to follow precedence when its something we already want to do...otherwise we ignore it.

I'm just tired of us being the "go to guy" for the rest of the world, we need to take some time and get our own house in order before we spend more helping others.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 11:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

And I'm still not clear what out interest is in Libya. I understand it being in much of Europe's interest, seeing that they get much of their oil from that area. Let Europe do it for themselves if it's in their interest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cowboy
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 12:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I see in the news yesterday that Obama was suckered a gain. We are spending $55 milion per day.------All the other one the brits, the french and all the rest are spending $4.8 million per day. (combined)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buellkowski
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 12:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Honestly, I think Sarko & Cameron talked Obama into U.S. participation in this venture. Libya is much more a European interest; I'll bet France & the UK called in a favor in return for their support of our Iraq operation.

It is not coincidental that France fired the first shot (having been the first to recognize the rebels) and that Britain fired the first Tomahawk at Gaddafi's compund (for Lockerbie). Yes, the US is heavily involved, but I don't think this is "our" fight.

From Obama's address: "There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security — responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us. They're problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 12:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The official story as I understand it is that the Arab League asked the US for help at which time BO went to the UN for international help. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the idea that France wanted a pay back for their help in Iraq.

France stood in our way on Iraq!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buellkowski
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

IIRC, Sarko recognized the rebels and actively courted the Arab League for support prior to the League's request for help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 12:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Still makes no sense regarding a payback for Iraq. I haven't heard that Sarkozy asked the Arab League to ask BO for help.

Maybe he slipped them a note in study hall?
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration