Military option in Libya?

[Seamonkey]

What’s the deal with a “military option” on the table in Libya?

I’ve got my head buried in school work the past couple weeks and don’t watch TV but I am aware of the revolts/riots/civil unrest in the Middle East. Just wondering, with all these countries having revolts and some of the governments opening fire on the protesters (Bahrain) what’s the deal with Libya?

I realize the Navy’s got the Gulf covered and the rest of the land lubbers have bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain and all the rest…. So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

[HBARleatherneck]

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.

[2008f450]

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.


+1 We need to protect us and our people first. Im tired of the U.S. being the helping hand for the world. Tired of our comunist in chief saying sorry for what we do. Bring our military home,seal the borders. Tanks on the border and snipers in the brush. Try crossing now pablo[M2]

[275RLTW]

So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

Because we already have guys in the other countries...

[Hoosier]

What’s the deal with a “military option” on the table in Libya?

I’ve got my head buried in school work the past couple weeks and don’t watch TV but I am aware of the revolts/riots/civil unrest in the Middle East. Just wondering, with all these countries having revolts and some of the governments opening fire on the protesters (Bahrain) what’s the deal with Libya?

I realize the Navy’s got the Gulf covered and the rest of the land lubbers have bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain and all the rest…. So why is there talk of military action in Libya and not in these other countries?

The only military option that's being discussed is enforcing a no-fly zone. Ghaddafi is using attack fighters and helo's to try and defend Tripoli. This is what the F-117 and F-22 are made for, I'm sure we could burn up a few AGM-78/AGM-88 eating radar sites around Tripoli.

I'm all for keeping those aging Mirage and Eurocopters sitting on the tarmac. We enforced no-fly over northern and southern Iraq for a decade.

However, I'm incredibly opposed to putting US military boots on the ground in-country. We need another war in the middle east like we need a hole in the head.

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

[275RLTW]

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

Egypt (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/el-gorah.htm)
Tunisia (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453783.060416667.html)
Bahrain (http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/videos/videos.html)
Yemen (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029504272764876.html)
Saudia Arabia (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/eskan-village.htm)


These are just some of the advertised presences in those countries. If there are bases and access to an airfield... then we most likely have other guys on the ground there as well.

[clublights]

Hoosier's got this right

Deploy the F-22 to Aviano in Italy with tanker and AWACS support and you can deny the air to Libyan aircraft easy enough.

This is EXACTLY what it was designed for Air Superiority in hostile airspace!

Besides it will shut up the nay sayers about the F-22 by proving it in combat.

[Elhuero]

putting our troops anywhere near a muslim infested african civil war is a blunder of epic proportions. let's hope that obama's inexperience doesn't get the better of him.

[Byte Stryke]

we need to pull out of the area and spend the trillions of dollars in domestic oil development and exploration.

There is nothing wrong with our supply, its development of our supply and refinery technologies that needs work.


Besides, maybe they will kill themselves off and then we can get theirs on the cheap. :D

[brokenscout]

It was a mistake to go into Iraq, let them kill each other. Atleast while there killing each other it keeps them busy. Also its none of our business. Start issueing some permits to drill oil over here or better yet go kick Chavez out, he is closer anyways. Or even better, let Israel deal with it.

[mitch]

I'm just glad no one is taking McCain seriously in his desire to train and arm yet another group of unemployed illiterate muslims in a third (fourth?) world country.

Also, I'm hoping the US is learning that from now on we need to just go ahead and kill the head of state when we get into a pissing contest. No sense dragging it out for 20-30 years when dealing with men like Saddam and Mommar.

[ChunkyMonkey]

This is what the F-117
.

http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/F-117_stealth_fighter_RIP.jpg

RIP F-117

[Seamonkey]

i dont know the reasoning. but, they need to stay the fuck out. pull all our troops out of iraq and afghanistan and post them at our southern border, our nothern border and the ports. stop all smuggling, human or cargo. and do it now.

+1


The only military option that's being discussed is enforcing a no-fly zone. Ghaddafi is using attack fighters and helo's to try and defend Tripoli. This is what the F-117 and F-22 are made for, I'm sure we could burn up a few AGM-78/AGM-88 eating radar sites around Tripoli.

I'm all for keeping those aging Mirage and Eurocopters sitting on the tarmac. We enforced no-fly over northern and southern Iraq for a decade.

However, I'm incredibly opposed to putting US military boots on the ground in-country. We need another war in the middle east like we need a hole in the head.

Oh, and why Libya and not Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen (yet), Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy: Only in Libya is the old power regime using aircraft against the rebels.

H.

I'm guessing that's it. An article yesterday mentioned a no fly zone would keep him from bringing in African merc's and doing air strikes. I know about the Iraq no fly zone, I was there. Oh, and the U.N. oil for food rings a bell also, gee that sure worked out!

[BigMat]

Seems to me, that military involvement is a bad call, in fact any involvement is a bad call.

I know we want some regimes to end, but more importantly we would want a reasonable "Jordan-ish" friendly reasonable gov't in place. If we go in hot, odds on being popular by the end of it is very low. Very easy for extremists to claim "the evil empire" is toppling poor Muslim Gov'ts and that ends poorly. We aren't well enough loved to do shit now, maybe the UN or the African Union, but not us.

Beyond my personal opinion that we should bring our young men and women home.

[Hoosier]

http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/F-117_stealth_fighter_RIP.jpg

RIP F-117

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

H.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

H.

One remain for R&D. Sad indeed....

[ERNO]

A start-up of a no-fly zone, against MQ's aircraft, is an act of war, against Libya; buy the very fact that we would have take out MQ's anti-aircraft, and radar batteries on the ground to enforce a very expensive no-fly zone. MQ, is aware of this threat, and up to now, he is using his aircraft to bomb weapons depot's and other military target's, meanwhile, avoiding carpet bombing rebel held cities.

MQ, has a sizeable pile of mustard gas, but has questionable means of delivering the mustard gas to the target.

If MQ, uses mustard gas, or carpet bombs the cities, the U.S. will be forced to go in, with: air force, cruise missiles, tanks, artillery, and a U.S. Marine led invasion force, backed up with Osprey's.

Good luck, to our U.S. Troop's, and our Air and Naval Forces.


Erno

[sniper7]

I thought that is what long range missiles were designed for?

fuck sending our troops, fuck sending our navy, fuck sending in marines. send them a direct hit to Gadhafi's stronghold and then let them figure it out.

I am sick of seeing our country wasting our money on other countries problems, sick of us feeling like we owe them a rebuilding after we clean the place up, and sick of others countries standing by doing nothing but taking in more of our tax payer funds.

the powers at be better figure this out quick or before long this same kind of shit might be happening right here in the US.


oh, and bring the troops home for the forsaken middle east, level the sand pit with some serious firepower including nukes. thousands of years of fighting will not be solved by the US coming in and telling the different groups to shake hands and let their women vote and have rights. anyone who believes this should take their "coexist" sticker, light it on fire, and shove it up their ass.

[BushMasterBoy]

If the rebels had some of these missiles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc

[mcantar18c]

If MQ, uses mustard gas, or carpet bombs the cities, the U.S. will be forced to go in, with: air force, cruise missiles, tanks, artillery, and a U.S. Marine led invasion force, backed up with Osprey's.

Our troops don't need their air support crashing into the ground.
But yes, when he starts pulling a Saddam on his people we'll be going in.


I thought that is what long range missiles were designed for?

No, that's what OGA's are for.


If the rebels had some of these missiles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc

If the rebels could afford some of those missiles, they may as well just buy their way into power.

[Byte Stryke]

Our troops don't need their air support crashing into the ground.
But yes, when he starts pulling a Saddam on his people we'll be going in.

Not to piss in your Cheerios, But what makes you certain of this?
We didn't go in when Saddam "pulled a Saddam".
He pulled his crap on the Kurdish people of Halabja in March 1988.
The primary we really went in after him in 1990 is that he unmistakeably invaded a neighboring country, which happened to be an ally (of Sorts) and a major oil exporter.

[Hoosier]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12657396

Newbie shoots down a Libyan jet his first time at the helm of a ZPU-4 with two barrels missing and only 1 of the 2 left actually working.

The Libyan government captured a Dutch Marine helicopter and crew that was trying to get foreign nationals out of country.

The rebels captured a British SAS unit that was there trying to get a diplomat in touch with the rebel leaders. Apparently they jailed them, because they don't want Ghaddafi to be able to use their presence as a propaganda piece. My guess is the SAS guys were awfully nice and allowed themselves to be captured instead of killing a bunch of people.

H.

[Irving]

My guess is the SAS guys were awfully nice and allowed themselves to be captured instead of killing a bunch of people.

H.

That was my initial thought when I first heard the report last night. I really don't know though.

[Ridge]

Obama is a warmonger!

No blood for oil!
No blood for oil!

[Byte Stryke]

Obama is a warmonger!

No blood for oil!
No blood for oil!


[ROFL1]

[Hoser]

I didn't know they decommissioned them. Sad to see that much cash end up in a scrap heap. I hope they saved a few for museums.

They only chopped up one. The rest went back home to Tonopah.

[Elhuero]

now obama is threatening military action.

we are fucked.

[StagLefty]

Let Britain and France take this one

[Mtn.man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-allied-forces-converge-for-libya-attack/2011/03/18/ABUQkvr_story.html

[Zundfolge]

My initial response to this whole Obama/Libya debacle was to be critical of Obama for dithering while people that wanted to overthrow an enemy of America died.

But the reality is, those people that wish to take Gaddafi out are nothing more than Al Queda and Muslim Brotherhood thugs.

So at this point I'm actually rooting for Gaddafi. Sure he's an evil dictator but he's a coward and Al Queda is brave so he's less likely to do anything to us than the rebels once they're in power.

Obama's inaction is simply a case of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

So I say we do nothing. Going to suck for the Libyan people (but it will suck for them either way).

[Monky]

Honestly, it should be left up to Libya and Libya alone to sort out their problems.. It is the survival of the fittest, or in this case the more well armed. There have been civil wars fought for as long as history has been recorded. This rebellion was started w/o thought of 'who' their leader actually is.. MQ has not been known to be gentle and the rebels were without arms... Let them organize themselves and acquire arms.. eventually MQ will run out of money to fund his mercenaries.. they are only loyal as long as there is money and their prey is easy target.

The 'rebels' will not win this on their own, and in the end the US will just be arming (if that's what happens) another anti-american tribal land. Worked out well for us in the past..

As far as MQ not being able to do anything to us.. well according to defectors from his staff Lockerbie was his.. Chicken shit cowards will always fight as chicken shit cowards.. He will begin to fund the terrorist more if he remains in power, and fund them to go after whatever countries get involved. IF we get involved in yet another skirmish in a land that should be turned into a glass parking lot.. it will not end well for us. The 'people' are calling for an intervention but what will happen when American blood is spilled on their sand?

[Irving]

Let Britain and France take this one

That's what I was thinking.

[BPTactical]

You know I am by no means a political/foreign authority but I do have a couple thoughts.
I am very concerned of any military action for a couple reasons. Our military is stretched thin as is, do we have the resources available if it goes to the boots on the ground?
If it does go to any type of action what does that mean to the US? Will it cause the Muzzy factions/cells that are here but according to Napalitano dont exist to go active and put us all at further risk?
As far as cheering for Ghadafi because the opposition is Muslim Brotherhood keep in mind "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" The Muslim Brotherhood is essentially kindergarten for Al Queda. If we encourage the MB are we essentially supporting AQ?

I highly doubt that BarryO's words carry much credence to a Ghadafi. I think most leaders in the middle east consider him a rank amatuer.

I will agree with HBARLeatherneck on this one, bring em home, protect our borders.
We have an economy in the tank, foreign debt that is outlandish, US citizens dying everyday at the hands of illegals, a drug traffic issue that is beyond comprehension to most, double digit unemployment.
The lack of action on those issues is a blatant misfeasance of office if not malfeasance.
We need to mind our own business and TCOB at home.

[Bailey Guns]

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:

“If you don’t get him out and if you don’t support the opposition and he stays in power, there’s no telling what he will do.” And yes, she warned, he would do “terrible things,” because it was just “in his nature.”For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

[ERNO]

I, fully support, the United Nations security council decision for a no fly zone in Libya, along with a tougher resolution that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi in order to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe there.

MQ, likes to label all of his oponent's as terrorists and supporter's of AQ. Though, the question of who these Libyan rebels are, lurks in everbodys minds.
MQ, and his two sons have to be removed from power, unless he calls for a total ceasefire.

NYT, SAT., March 19, 2011

" Shift by Clinton helped push Pres. Obama to take a harder line against Libya.

The administration's shift also, became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.

France and Britain continued to press their hawkish position on Friday, saying they intend to take the lead in enforcing a no-flight zone.

A French official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the possible targets for airstrikes would include the Qaddafi force's airfields and the long supply line running from Tripoli to the loyalist forces pressing towards Bengazi. 'The threat is there, which is why we want to act fast,' the official said. 'Libyan troops are only 150 kilometers from Bengazi,' or about 93 miles. A naval blockade was also a possibility."

[Mtn.man]

The FRENCH fired first strike.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001

[Seamonkey]

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

you forgot gitmo

[Byte Stryke]

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.


Amen

and as far as France being all Up-ins... it was easy for them to criticize us for going into Iraq. They had no interests there.
As I understand it the price of fuel per litre had nearly tripled in the EU since the Libyan revolution.

Pretty funny all of the hypocrisy going on...

[earplug]

Under the constitution only congress can declare war.
Congress is our representative arm in government.
Having the US President and the United Nations decide how to use out military is bullshit.
Why bother funding congress if they don't represent the citizens and they don't take part in the most important decisions of declaring war on other nations.
I won't argue the right or wrong of the no fly zone.
The fact is we no longer live in a nation of laws under the constitution.

[BPTactical]

The thing that really bugs me about the whole cruise missle thing- I could understand sending half a dozen or so to hit key targets. But we sent over a hundred and I dont see how Libya could interperet that as anything but an act of war.
Great-we now have another 3rd world Muzzy shithole pissed at us.

Coming to a location near you-random acts of terrorism....................

[hollohas]

I think this is a royal fuck up. I'm pissed. The US should have stayed out completely. Now every news channel has a headline "US missiles pound Libya." Great... The rest of the world sees those very same headlines. What do you think the rest of the American hating Middle East thinks when they see those headlines?

Obama ran his campaign largely against the wars in the middle east and how the rest of the world hated us for it. Now he is sending missiles in. The hypocrisy of this guy kills me.

But even after all his lies, his base still loves him. 'Shut down Gitmo"...nope, didn't happen. "End the wars"...nope, didn't happen. "Make the world love America again"...nope, didn't happen. "Make tons of jobs, reduce taxes, fix the economy, etc, etc"...none of it happened. We all knew he wouldn't do any of this stuff but the lib base believed him. How can his base still like this guy?

Bring ALL the troops home and protect our boarders. Let them do what ever the fuck they want over there. Let them hate us. If we protect our boarders the way we should it doesn't matter how much they hate us 'cause they ain't getting in to hurt us.

Our only hope is that many of the libs will be pissed at Bama for this too...maybe he will lose votes from his base? Or am I dreaming...?

[Bailey Guns]

I, fully support, the United Nations security council decision for a no fly zone in Libya, along with a tougher resolution that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi in order to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe there.

MQ, likes to label all of his oponent's as terrorists and supporter's of AQ. Though, the question of who these Libyan rebels are, lurks in everbodys minds.
MQ, and his two sons have to be removed from power, unless he calls for a total ceasefire.

See what I mean? Liberals are all over the Libya thing. It's a "looming humanitarian crisis". Big fuckin' deal.

We've had humanitarian crises "in progress" all over Africa and various 3rd world countries for the 50 years I've been on the planet. Is it up to us to stop or to intervene in all of them? Why Libya? Especially since, by even your own admission, we don't really know who the "good guys" are we're supposed to be helping. As far as anyone knows the opposition could be a front group for al-Queda. Why not one of a hundred other places where gov't or rebel forces are slaughtering civilians?

Fuckin' liberals.

[Bailey Guns]

Our only hope is that many of the libs will be pissed at Bama for this too...maybe he will lose votes from his base? Or am I dreaming...?

Hah!!! You're a funny guy! Now wake up from that nightmare you're having.

[sniper7]

nuke em. i don't give a shit. level the whole fucking place.

[Monky]

nuke em. i don't give a shit. level the whole fucking place.


+1 turn it into a glass parking lot and slap a wal-mart on it.. that'll show them how fucking evil we really are!

[glocklp]

Im in the Army reserves, and I agree with most of you. Pull us the hell out of the middle east, and protect our borders. Their is a war on our home town and the government dont care. When you go to a store and cant understand the announcements, when you cant find a job after fighting for your country, when us citizens cannot go to school, when unemployment hits 9% ( we all know its higher ) when your neighbors have ten families in one apartment, something is wrong. I went to the DMV a couple days ago and they had a
Translator their for non english speaking people.
What we need to do is re claim our country. Hell with the rest.

[mitch]

nuke em. i don't give a shit. level the whole fucking place.

A+++ WOULD BUY AGAIN

I'm assuming, of course, that Trinitite can be easily drilled through for oil....

[sniper7]

A+++ WOULD BUY AGAIN

I'm assuming, of course, that Trinitite can be easily drilled through for oil....


if it is hard to drill through, no problem, we will have plenty of time to figure out a way.

[glocklp]

Its official, Im voting for sniper7 for president! And I agree. Fuck em.

[ChunkyMonkey]

nuke em. i don't give a shit. level the whole fucking place.

Why stop there? I don't mind a couple mushroom cloud above Syria and Iran either.

[Hoosier]

Why stop there? I don't mind a couple mushroom cloud above Syria and Iran either.

fuck it, I'm out before I even begin.

H.

[ERNO]

MQ, and his sons pincer movement, against the Libyan rebels, made the Obama administration look weak in the Middle East. The Saudi's reaction, was to stage a brutal crackdown in Bahrain.

The U.S., does not want Tehran stepping in to back Shiites in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

Obama's telephone conversation with the Saudi king, was that Obama asked for a "political process as the only way to peacefully address the legitimate grievances of Bahrainis and to lead to a Bahrain that is stable, just, more unified and responsive to its people," according to Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.

Probably, the only reason MQ, survived the last U.S. attack on his life, in 1988, was that the former prime minister of Italy, warned MQ, about the impending attack.

NYT, Friday, March 18, 2011

Wash.--- "There once was no American institution more hostile to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's pariah government than the Central Intelligence Agency, which had lost its deputy Beirut station chief when Libyan intelligence operatives blew up Pan Am Flight 103 above Scotland in 1988.

In recent years, the CIA has been closely tethered to MQ's intelligence service as it hunts for information about operatives of AQ IN North Africa.


The CIA faces questions about whether such ties blinded it to undercurrents of dissent and may now damage America's standing with emerging democratic governments."

[Elhuero]

obama is blundering all over the place.

he has no business sticking us into the libya situation, especially after all his "end the wars" bullshit he ran his three year presidential campaign on.

I'm not against us going into libya.

I'd be all for it if we were going in to kick fucking ass, kill leatherface, then hand the libyans the country and say "here you go, sovereign democracy with a side of liberty. If you go sharia and become hotbed for terrorism we'll come back and kill you a lot."

[Elhuero]

fuck it, I'm out before I even begin.

H.


hehe

[Byte Stryke]

obama is blundering all over the place.

he has no business sticking us into the libya situation, especially after all his "end the wars" bullshit he ran his three year presidential campaign on.

I'm not against us going into libya.

I'd be all for it if we were going in to kick fucking ass, kill leatherface, then hand the libyans the country and say "here you go, sovereign democracy with a side of liberty. If you go sharia and become hotbed for terrorism we'll come back and kill you in the fu**ing face with a JDAM."


Fixed it for you

[Bailey Guns]

in the fu**ing face with a JDAM

I'm beginning to think some of us folks on here gots some anger issues.

Oh...but I'm good with that.

[Coffee]

[Byte Stryke]

I'm beginning to think some of us folks on here gots some anger issues.

Oh...but I'm good with that.

[Coffee]


well, if you look at Iraq, Granted that wasn't a great deal and we should have finished it the first time OR stayed the hell out of it the second time.
Everyone is crying "human rights violations", "oh the Humanity", "Someone should do something","Oh Please free us from Oppression."
So we go in, Kick ass, Topple the regime, start elections and the country turns to shit.
The same people we "liberated" are planting IEDs and sniping our troops all because some prophet forgot to name a successor.
WTF!?

SO yeah, Since obama decided we are going to liberate Libya, I Say Fuck it, we are Balls deep on the fat lady, they have pictures and we can't deny it.
Might as well see it through.

BUT

If this one turns to ass-cheese over something that equates to being as insignificant as protestant vs Catholic I Say fuck it, Civilians and innocents get out while you can, Paving begins tomorrow.

[Mtn.man]

Whats another 3mill a day. we have a printing press.

[sniper7]

Why stop there? I don't mind a couple mushroom cloud above Syria and Iran either.


I definitely wouldn't shed a tear.

[sniper7]

Whats another 3mill a day. we have a printing press.


might as well hire some more .gov workers so we can run those presses 24/7!

[sniper7]

fuck it, I'm out before I even begin.

H.


probably the best idea. the whole concept of us in Libya has not reason or purpose, and accordingly most posts, including mine will be based on that same premise. might not make sense or be logistical, but damnit, I would love to see it happen.

[mcantar18c]

March 23, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States

The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your “constitutional
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”


The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative “to declare war.” Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.

The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President’s power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities “shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities…”


The War Powers Resolution unambiguously defines three circumstances under which the President as Commander in Chief may order United States Armed Forces into hostile action: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Your letter cites none of these conditions.
Nor can the power to order an act of war be inferred from the President’s authority as “Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

The Constitution’s Framers were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton draws a sharp distinction between the President’s authority as Commander in Chief as “nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and the authority of the British king “which extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ~ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of Constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional.

Sincerely,
Tom McClintock
Member of Congress

[Byte Stryke]

I must state unmistakeably that I See the use of our armed forces against Libya by Obama as an usurpation of the Constitution of the United States and Federal Law. I Believe it to be a criminal act that must be answered. A Single man has declared war against the nation of Libya unlawfully using the forces of these United States for his personal campaigns.

The ends do not justify the means.
It does bother me deeply

[Elhuero]

here's a vid from 07 with biden bitching about bush and talking impeachment for the same thing that obama just did.


0xpfpciJzBU&playnext=1&list=PL7B513D78AAC43EC7

[Lex_Luthor]

I copied and pasted that letter and emailed it to the President. Had to chop it down for size though.

[Monky]

So now we're going to start arming them according to Clinton. (my summary) 'The UN resolution for airstrikes in our interpretation gives us permission to arm the rebels...'

That's worked so well for us in the past.. /facepalm.

[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]

[clublights]

So now we're going to start arming them according to Clinton. (my summary) 'The UN resolution for airstrikes in our interpretation gives us permission to arm the rebels...'

That's worked so well for us in the past.. /facepalm.

[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]

Source please.

[CrufflerSteve]

Source please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

"Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country."

I hope and pray those weapons don't end being used against Americans.

Steve

[clublights]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

"Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country."

I hope and pray those weapons don't end being used against Americans.

Steve

Yeah I just found that myself ...


but in the video they don;t show her saying that at all ...

yes I don't trust the media.

[Monky]

Yeah I just found that myself ...


but in the video they don;t show her saying that at all ...

yes I don't trust the media.

Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."

You kids today.. don't want to take time to read :) [Coffee]

[clublights]

Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."

You kids today.. don't want to take time to read :) [Coffee]

I DID read.........

again ........ Don't trust media. wanted video of her saying it with her own mouth ! LOL

Don't believe everything you read son!

[Byte Stryke]

I DID read.........

again ........ Don't trust media. wanted video of her saying it with her own mouth ! LOL

Don't believe everything you read son!


I have this video of a talking duck wearing a sailors outfit

JG_z8quQiVg


[ROFL1]

[Monky]

I DID read.........

again ........ Don't trust media. wanted video of her saying it with her own mouth ! LOL

Don't believe everything you read son!

I don't..but there is probably a reason she didn't say it to the UN. I don't think that video shows the whole session.. just a little section.

They might argue that it does not lift the arms embargo, and her little plan would be shut down!

[clublights]

I have this video of a talking duck wearing a sailors outfit

JG_z8quQiVg


[ROFL1]


And a talking duck in a sailor suit is MORE believable then most of the MSM....

[clublights]

I don't..but there is probably a reason she didn't say it to the UN. I don't think that video shows the whole session.. just a little section.

They might argue that it does not lift the arms embargo, and her little plan would be shut down!

yeah I found it interesting that they used the video clips of her they did where she basically said ... well nothing . and only text quote this rather important development!

[ERNO]

With the passage of the UN Resolution of 2005?: Ready2Protect; gives the Obama administration absolute authority to protect civilians from a despotic dictator intent on wiping out the civilian population; with immediate military retribution.

[Hoosier]

With the passage of the UN Resolution of 2005?: Ready2Protect; gives the Obama administration absolute authority to protect civilians from a despotic dictator intent on wiping out the civilian population; with immediate military retribution.

Uh, not quite. The U.N. doesn't give the President the power to conduct a war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 does. He has two days to inform Congress, and 60 days to seek approval. The original War Powers Act restricted the power to declare war (by the U.S.) to Congress. However if I'm not mistaken in every instance Congress in turn passed another law to authorize the President for that particular instance.

U.N. approval may prevent it from being a War Crime, but let's face it, only losers need to worry about being convicted of a war crime. If you don't lose the war, you get to write the history, problem solved.

H.

[Mtn.man]

What the Hill said was...


Wha wha wha whaw whaa.
KNow Nothing Wha wha wha blah wha,,,wish we knew more...