Military option in Libya?

[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...ica/?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....................