The US Military Is Bombing Libya? (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Is there a more truly insane ruler anywhere on the planet? I'm serious. I honestly can't think of one. (Ok, maybe Kim Jung Il.) Maybe I have a limited imagination, but I'm really struggling to come up with a way to have a downgrade from Gaddafi.

Similar sayings about Iraq and Saddam. Don't think it is our business. But either way, it will be better than a long war with a ground invasion against the will of the majority of the world.
 
well, to be fair he might have heard it from one of the generals. "Going kinetic" has been semi-code for switching from diplomacy to warheads-on-foreheads for a while.

Please. Everything O-bomb-a reads has been through about 4 different marketing and polling filters, including his own.
 
More news on the Kinetic Military Action that you won't see on FoxNews, MSNBC, or in the pages of the NYT. Meanwhile, in what must have been a mistake, the WaPo is reporting that the O-bomb-a administration is sending out people on the ground in Libya to find out exactly who we are, er, I mean NATO is, funding. What a clusterfuck.

http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586

LIBYA: Rebels execute black immigrants while forces kidnap others

ADDIS ABABA — While much of the world’s attention is focusing on crude oil prices and the Libyan pipelines in the east of the country– human right groups say rebels are committing crimes against humanity.

In east Libya, African hunt began as towns and cities began fall under the control of Libyan rebels, mobs and gangs. They started to detain, insult, rape and even executing black immigrants, students and refugees.

In the past two weeks, more than 100 Africans from various Sub-Sahara states are believed to have been killed by Libyan rebels and their supporters.

According to Somali refugees in Libya, at least five Somalis from Somaliland and Somalia were executed in Tripoli and Benghazi by anti-Gaddafi mobs. Dozens of refugees and immigrants workers from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Mali and Niger have been killed, some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Black Libyan men receiving medical care in hospitals in Benghazi were reportedly abducted by armed rebels. They are part of more than 200 African immigrants held in secret locations by the rebels.

In many disputes involving Libyan residents and black Africans, the Libyans are turning in the Africans as mercenaries.

Thousands more Africans caught up in this mercenary hysteria are terrified. Some barricaded themselves in their homes, while others hid in the desert. Insulted, threatened, beaten, chased and robbed. Their only crime was being black and therefore treated as “mercenaries” of Gaddafi.

While the airing of Gaddafi’s so called “black mercenaries” by Western media has ignited the issue, some say an xenophobic attitude towards these refugees and labourers has existed for years. They say the current attacks are racially motivated because the rebels have released many actual Libyan mercenaries and soldiers under a tribal agreement. They believe many Arabs felt their Libyan leader was abandoning them for black Africans ever since he became a “pan-Africanist”. Many immigrants were regularly victims of racism.

In many situations, Gaddafi and his inner circle preferred black Africans and Libyans from the south over Libyans from the east. Now the angry mobs using the revolutionary movement across Arabia and North Africa are hunting down black people.

Mohamed Abdillahi, Somaliland, 25, was sleeping at his home in Zouara, when the mobs arrived. “They knocked on the door around 1 o’clock in the morning. They said get out, we’ll kill you, you are blacks, foreigners, clear.”

The testimonials and are very similar among the thousands of Africans that saw the ugly side of Libya in the past weeks. “They have attacked us, they took everything from us,” said Ali Farah, Somali labourer 29 years.

“They wanted to kill civilians, they beat many of us. To me, they are animals,” says Jamal Hussein, 25 years Sudanese worker.

Many of the fleeing Africans are terrified to tell their stories. At the checkpoint, they do not mingle with others. When asked about their ordeal, they just freeze, “they stopped us many times and said not tell what has happened here, say there are no problems,” Elias Nour from Ethiopia said.

continued at link...
 
Similar sayings about Iraq and Saddam. Don't think it is our business. But either way, it will be better than a long war with a ground invasion against the will of the majority of the world.

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about past conflicts the past few weeks. Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gulf War, Somalia. The recurring theme I see in these is that the short ones (aside from Somalia) were popular, the long ones weren't. The ones where we were clearly on the side of people on the streets where the fighting happened (Kosovo, Panama, Gulf War) were popular, but where there was much ambiguity, they weren't popular among the American public.

Libya may wind up being protracted, but Obama seems pretty clear in his intent not to get sucked into putting boots on the ground. Which means the lions share of our headline-grabbing involvement may span a few weeks.

From what the media tells me, we seem to be on the side of the people on the street in Libya. So that's a good omen too.

Given that I live on the other side of the globe and don't know the area, I'm really just speculating. But it seems like this should fall more on the Grenada/Panama/Kosovo side of the spectrum than the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan side.
 
Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about past conflicts the past few weeks. Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gulf War, Somalia. The recurring theme I see in these is that the short ones (aside from Somalia) were popular, the long ones weren't. The ones where we were clearly on the side of people on the streets where the fighting happened (Kosovo, Panama, Gulf War) were popular, but where there was much ambiguity, they weren't popular among the American public.

Libya may wind up being protracted, but Obama seems pretty clear in his intent not to get sucked into putting boots on the ground. Which means the lions share of our headline-grabbing involvement may span a few weeks.

From what the media tells me, we seem to be on the side of the people on the street in Libya. So that's a good omen too.

Given that I live on the other side of the globe and don't know the area, I'm really just speculating. But it seems like this should fall more on the Grenada/Panama/Kosovo side of the spectrum than the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan side.

Until the UN or NATO votes us to send in ground troops, and no congressional vote either.
 
Does anyone else think Barack Obama would be happiest as the UN Secretary General? I think that would be a terrific job for him.
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb

President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. Obama also cited Iraq’s weakened economy and the fact that it was still possible to contain Saddam’s aggression, repudiating the Bush administration’s rationale that Saddam posed too great a threat to American interests and his own people to be left in power.

“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history,” said Sen. Obama.

Obama, in his 2002 speech, said that instead of deposing Saddam through force, America should “fight” for democratic reforms in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, stronger international nuclear safeguards, and energy independence.
“Those are the battles that we need to fight,” Obama said in 2002. “Those are the battles that we willingly join – the battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.”
 
Until the UN or NATO votes us to send in ground troops, and no congressional vote either.

Is there much precedent for that? Has the US ever sent troops into a war zone because the UN or NATO ordered it against the will of a president?

Truth is that in this day and age, regardless of what the constitution or the UN or NATO says, war happens where the president says it's going to happen.

I take Obama at his word that he's not interested in a boots-on-the-ground operation. Mostly because he can see the same evidence I do about the likely political outcome. Americans are sick of it.
 
Is there much precedent for that? Has the US ever sent troops into a war zone because the UN or NATO ordered it against the will of a president?

Truth is that in this day and age, regardless of what the constitution or the UN or NATO says, war happens where the president says it's going to happen.

I take Obama at his word that he's not interested in a boots-on-the-ground operation. Mostly because he can see the same evidence I do about the likely political outcome. Americans are sick of it.

Well, there were numerous news stories about Hillary quitting (end of 1st term at the latest) over Obama dragging his feet before giving the "go" order. That would indicate he wasn't all that willing until the UN voted that we should go bomb Libya.

Or that he wanted war beyond a no fly zone.

http://www.salon.com/news/media_cri...2011/03/22/women_forced_obama_to_war_open2011

Was Obama henpecked into war?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Boys_against_girls_over_Libya.html?showall

As has been reported, the crucial decisions were made at a pair of meetings Tuesday, which an Administration official said were far from the showdowns depicted in some accounts. Power, for instance, was present at a 4:10 p.m. meeting but didn't speak, an official said; Clinton, overseas, wasn't patched in to that meeting. Obama, told a no-fly zone wouldn't be enough to stop Qadhafi, sent Donilon to draw up other political and military options in the Situation Room, the official said; Donilon brought his notes to a 9:00 p.m. principals' meeting, at which the course was set.
 
well, to be fair he might have heard it from one of the generals. "Going kinetic" has been semi-code for switching from diplomacy to warheads-on-foreheads for a while.

Thanks for that info, and also for warheads-on-foreheads, which I haven't heard before - I like that one.

barfo
 
NATO (and surprisingly, the Obomba administation - I though they gave up control??) is now considering bombing the "rebels" that we're supposed to be siding with.

Heckuva job, Barry. The comments to the actual article would be funny, if this entire clusterfuck weren't so sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=2&src=twrhp

NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Civilians

WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official.

Continued at link...
 
So, as I read it, NATO/Obomba are now just going to bomb any Muslims who don't follow their orders?

How can anybody not consider this an absolute disaster at this point?
 
Get used to it.

You mean Brian is going to share more military lingo? Bring it on, Brian. Especially ones that rhyme, like warheads on foreheads.

barfo
 
we have to remember them somehow. And some of us aren't smart enough to even spell mnemonic, much less know what it means.
 

So if the male advisers had won out, would you be saying now that Obama was cock blocked from going into war?

I hate to put on my crandc hat, but the whole gender thing seems silly. Sometimes some people have more convincing arguments than others. Sometimes those smarter people happen to have vaginas. And I don't see how the presence or absence of vaginas of his staff impacts his decision to follow lockstep with whatever the UN or NATO says.

Anyway, even the writer of that article disagrees with your point:
"Everyone started with a healthy degree of skepticism," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. "But everyone moved toward the final decision based on the president's urging, but also because of what was happening on the ground, with Qadhafi moving toward Bengazi and [saying] he would show no mercy."
This isn't to say that a version of the narrative isn't true: Some of the prominent women on the foreign policy team, notably -- an official said -- Rice, did push hard for intervention, and did speak in key meetings. But the notion of an internal battle fought and won, or a shift in the poles of internal politics or Obama's evolving doctrine, seems to overstate the point.
 
Mook

My point wasn't about the gender thing but about how people in the State Dept. were upset with Obama dragging his feet before acting.

If you want to argue Obama is a warmonger chomping on the bit to get us into war in Libya, I'll concede your point. Though he should have acted weeks earlier if his objectives are what he claims. Why give ghadaffi 2 weeks notice so he can do his worst?
 
Mook

My point wasn't about the gender thing but about how people in the State Dept. were upset with Obama dragging his feet before acting.

Sorry. I saw you type "henpecked" and it sounded pretty sexist to me. Turns out it's a gender-neutral term. I guess hens can be boys or girls. Go figure. (Side note: I need to tell my sons some bad news about their pet chickens. )

If you want to argue Obama is a warmonger chomping on the bit to get us into war in Libya, I'll concede your point. Though he should have acted weeks earlier if his objectives are what he claims. Why give ghadaffi 2 weeks notice so he can do his worst?

Weird that you'd concede the point that he's a "warmonger" in one sentence and a war procrastinator in the next. I don't get that.

Anyway, I don't think he's really either. I think the delay came from trying to figure out what the hell to do, and then building an international consensus. It took a couple of weeks. I don't know that the delay was worth it, or that I'll ever know. *shrug* This stuff isn't easy.

I do know that pretty much every other operation I listed earlier took several weeks to a year to get moving.
 
Not much news out of either Libya or Egypt, or have things taken a turn for the worse?

Is Qadaffi still running Libya? Are the "rebels" still slaughtering citizens?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top