Why isn't President Obama calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down ?
Mubarak was a boy scout compared to this monster. He has a long history of state sponsored terrorism . His murderous deeds include the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing, UTA flight 772, the Berlin disco bombing . He allowed terrorist groups of all types including Palestinian ,Irish ,Italian,and Spanish to train in bases in Libya.

He has so far been the most brutal dictator in cracking down on the protesters in the Ummah. There are reports of hundreds killed ,Tanks and RPG's being used on them... snipers perched in helicopters shooting at demonstrators and mourners at funerals. There are reports of massacres in Benghazi.
He has plundered his nations oil wealth .
The press has been barred from reporting from Libya . Most of the news coming out has been smuggled out of the country.

The President's lame statement of being “deeply concerned” about “reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen” is a far cry from his calls for Mubarak to step down in Egypt.

There are now reports of military units opposed and loyal to Gaddafi battling each other in what appears to be decending into a civil war. There are also reports that Gaddafi is planning on bugging out and going into exile in Venezuela. Gaddafi and Chavez... perfect together.

His son has vowed to fight to the last bullet... which is not the language of someone winning .

But I do have to question the inconsistent policy of the Obama White House. They did not give support to the Iranian protesters last year as the Mahdi-hatter's goons gunned them down ,and he evidently is not taking a stand against Gaddafi. Was Mubarak the exception ? And if he is ;what did he do to piss off Obama ?

I think there might have been some underhanded campaign contributions to pay back... but that's just speculation.


But I agree... Gaddafi makes Mubarak look like a rank amateur. I'd like to know why the silence as well.

A US president can't just demand that every despot step down. We have to use our Ugly American card delicately and not too often. I guess Libyans have to fill the streets with tens of thousands of protesters, be seen worldwide, and be really close to a revolution.
Gaddaffi pays reparations for lots of bombings, it seems.
Assassination attempts on his life have failed.
One of his many sons will probably be his successor.
And who knows what kind of behind the scenes 'diplomacy' is going on over oil, other Arab states, Russia, maybe those wikileaks would give a clue.

Why isn't President Obama calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down ? Hello tom:

I don't know. He'll come around...

But, we DO have interests in the area... You understand that... I suppose that's why you don't call for the King of Bahrain to step down, or when the revolution hits Saudi Arabia, I doubt you'll call for that king to step down.

Me? I'm for ALL of the people.

excon

Neither the King of Bahrain or the Saudi royals.. or Mubarak have attacked and killed Americans .
Yeah there's lots of despots in the world . Some bad guys are worse than others.

Neither the King of Bahrain or the Saudi royals ..or Mubarak have attacked and killed Americans . Hello again, tom:

So, you support revolution in country's where the government kills Americans... But, in country's where the government kills its own people, not so much. Dude!

Me? I support ALL the people against dictators, even if they're our dictators.

excon

No I support all freedom loving people . I'm just wondering why the President's priority was to publicly speak out against a strongman who by world standards was not very brutal ,who had been instrumental in ME peace for 30 years ;who only sent troops outside his borders when another despot was threatening to seize half the world's oil resources and had rapined the people of another nation But he stays silent when the dictator is inclined to take steps that harm our national security or interests.

If I'm an ally ,I just have to wonder when Obama will turn against me.

I support ALL the people against dictators, even if they're our dictators.

Like the guy in Wisconsin?

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Feb-19-2011-D.jpg

I suspect Obama is too busy trying to stop that dictator to have much to say about the middle east

Exactly... Obama cares more about NOT dealing with excessive spending under his watch (he has less than two years to go before he gets tossed out and times running out) than he does about anything else that's important too.

After all his voters are the ones the gravy train is going to stop carrying.

But I do have to question the inconsistant policy of the Obama White House. They did not give support to the Iranian protesters last year as the Mahdi-hatter's goons gunned them down ,and he evidently is not taking a stand against Gaddafi. Was Mubarak the exception ? And if he is ;what did he do to piss off Obama ?

You got it Tom he is inconsistent or is it he is opportunist and wants to be on the winning side. In Libya the outcome isn't certain yet, the regime has a little more backbone than Mubarak. The Egyptian people didn't take up arms but the Libyans are a horse of a different colour. I doubt Obama wants to be seen backing an armed insurrection. Let the dominos fall where they may

In Libya the outcome isn't certain yet, the regime has a little more backbone than Mubarak. Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

I agree with you Ex the winds of change are blowing, however I expect the Libyian experience will be bloody. You need to remember that democracy is only an idea in the arab world and it is not the same as liberty. Already we have had the ugly side of religion raising its head and calling for assassination. What is happening in Libya serves no one well and without a constitution as a guide we can expect another military dictatorship. There are going to be millions of people who are essentially leaderless and prey for extremism. We hope that out of it they will have a democratic system but despotism is the more usual system

Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

There isn't ANY liberty or Democracy under Sharia Law OR under Islamic radicals... who are likely to be the ones that take over in most of those hellholes.

Smoothy there is no use telling an idealist anything. Ex just has no understanding of conditions in other places, he obviously thinks they should all be like him and sing hail to the chief.

Can an islamic country throw off the shackles of religion? Highly unlikely. Egypt has a chance but it hasn't happened yet, Lybia; what else do they have? The gulf states, even less likely. Ex should ask himself why did the Lybians put up with Gadhafi for 40 years?It is because he gave them something they wanted and it included an anti-american stance. What we are really seeing here is leaders being deposed who have sided with america. Iran is the exception and it had problems long before this jasmine revolution started.

One can only hope. I think that this ,much like the 1848 European revolutions will not displace the systems that have been in place since the breakup of the Ottomans ,and the nationalism movements post WWII .
It could plant the seeds for democracy ;and that is desirable. Even more desirable would be if the seeds of liberal democracy would grow. That is less likely ;but I have hope because the Iranian and Aghan experiences has shown that theocratic and Islamist control of revolution brings less liberty .

Smoothy there is no use telling an idealist anything. Hello again, clete:

You're right. I don't listen to idiots like you.

excon

Also noted is that in 3 cases ,Egypt,Libya,and Bahrain ,it has mattered which side has the guns .

Egypt... the military had the guns;refused to fire on the demonstrators ,and deposed the Pharaoh to buy time.

Bahrain... unrest largely the product of Iranian agitation ;the military remained loyal to the crown ;fired on the crowd,and let them continue to demonstrate knowing there is a line they will not be allowed to cross.

Libya... both sides have guns as there is a division in the military .It is decending into tribal civil war.
Q~daffy is still the strong horse (for now) but his regime may be damaged beyond repair .

It always matters which side has the guns

it always matters which side has the guns

That's the root of every gun grab since the Nazi Gun Control act...

Take the guns away from the people and they are far easier to oppress.

That's why most liberals favor taking away peoples guns. That's their first step to taking away the Right to free speech and then the right to vote. THen declare the US Constitution, unconstitutional.

Ever notice how Obama got more indignant about everyone who opposes his sermons on the mound, like forcing his stupid healt care disaster on everyone... but make only half the population pay for the entire thing... yet is so gung ho about supporting opposition where Islamic Radicals are likely to take over...

THats the root of every gun grab since the Nazi Gun Control act.....

.

Well that might be so but it also the root of the gun lobby, armed citizens, minutemen and all that crappola. It's eigthteen century thinking and has just been demonstrated so ably as wrong in the jasmine revolution, hardly a gun in sight.. What I like about my nation is we don't generally have nuts running around shooting people and those that do exported their ideas along with themselves from violent societies where the gun rules

well that might be so but it also the root of the gun lobby, armed citizens, minutemen and all that crappola. It's eigthteen century thinking and has just been demonstrated so ably as wrong in the jasmine revolution, hardly a gun in sight.. What I like about my nation is we don't generally have nuts running around shooting people and those that do exported their ideas along with themselves from violent societies where the gun rules

Oh you've had your nuts... every country has them.


Take away guns from the law abiding citizens.. then only the criminals are armed.

I LIKE my right to shoot and kill anyone I catch breaking into my home.

And think you can keep the criminals from having guns... think again. If they can sneek drugs in by the shipping container full... they will bring guns in as well if they have to.

Oh you've had your nuts....every country has them.


Take away guns from the law abiding citizens..then only the criminals are armed.

I LIKE my right to shoot and kill anyone I catch breaking into my home.

And think you can keep the criminals from having guns...think again. If they can sneek drugs in by the shipping container full.....they will bring guns in as well if they have to.

What you don't realise Smoothy is that that is a pecularly North American idea. That you can attack and kill someone breaking into your home. Apprehend yes but kill, that makes you exactly the same as the one you killed, a criminal. What do your american troops say when the same standard is applied to them by an Afghan, they don't say he had a right, Double standards.

I know you can't stop criminals from having guns and you can't stop them using one by having a gun yourself. Look at Mexico the consequence of the very ideas you espouse. The guns that kill Mexicans are made in America and they are exported by criminals because they are freely available.

I used to own a gun and have it with me but I now realise what a foolish idea that was.

The fact remains that in these countries ,it is the people who have the guns who make the rules... at least in the short term that has been the deciding factor .

Thursday marked the ninth day of a standoff with Muammar Gaddafi — who in a speech broadcast on state TV vowed to fight to his "last drop of blood" to hold on to power or die a "martyr."
Libya Protests | Muammar Gaddafi (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/africa/110223/libya-gaddafi-genocide-benghazi)

Q~daffy continues to use the language of someone losing . He reminds me of Jimmy Cagney in 'White Heat' yelling to the 'coppers' "come and get me" !

What you don't realise Smoothy is that that is a pecularly North American idea. That you can attack and kill someone breaking into your home. apprehend yes but kill, that makes you exactly the same as the one you killed, a criminal. What do your american troops say when the same standard is applied to them by an Afghan, they don't say he had a right, Double standards.

I know you can't stop criminals from having guns and you can't stop them using one by having a gun yourself. Look at Mexico the consequence of the very ideas you espouse. The guns that kill Mexicans are made in America and they are exported by criminals because they are freely available.

I used to own a gun and have it with me but I now realise what a foolish idea that was.

If I killed a criminal trying to hurt me or my family or take my property... I'm not the same as a criminal... I'm exactly the same as a cop who would do it in a similar situation.

My rights to protect my property excede any rights a criminal has to take them.

My right to protect my well being and that of my family also excede the rights of any criminal to do anything that would adversely effect it.

And its my right to have weapons to prevent any individual or party or country that should come to power by hook or by crook or force that would attempt to take away my rights and the constitution by any means.

And that's the beauty of a constitution that can't be changed on a whim. But only though a very specific and drawn out procedure it has already spelled out.

Foolish is expecting the government or police to keep you safe... the police are rarely ever on the scene before a crime occurs. They don't usually get there until its too late to prevent it.

But it is also ones right to take no steps towards protecting themselvesm their family or their property if they so wish, though be it at their own peril..

Well Tom you asked the question and he has finally done it. Must have an A$$ full of splinters by now

Yeah I was going to post an update .lol You know... more pressing concerns this week ;giving props to public unions, and MoTown stars entertaining POTUS and FLOTUS.

Of course if he calls for Q~Daffy to leave while at the same time endorses ICC war crime trials for him when he leaves ,it's more likely Q~Daffy will tough it out.

The President has asked the Pentagon for options... but Sec Def Gates is reluctant and reminded Congress that before NO-Fly Zones are established,the military would have to shape the battle field first... meaning bombs away to take out their air defenses. "Let's just call a spade a spade,"....."A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya."


China is this months President of the UN Security Council so it is unlikely there will be any help from the UN .NATO is disjointed and as far as I can tell ,is taking no coordinated steps .

China has it's own problems anyway as the Jasmine Revolution has spread to their cities. What ? It's not in the journals of truth ? Imagine that!!

My new hero US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman was seen strolling with the Chinese Jasmine protestors and has been vocal in his condemnation of the brutal treatment of reporters by Chinese security goons. What ? You didn't hear about that in the journals of truth ? Hmmmmmm.

Back to Libya .USS Enterprise, currently in the Gulf of Aden for pirate hunting, began to cross the Red Sea to go through the Suez Canal. The SS Kearsarge, an amphibious landing craft carrying a crew of 2,000 marines and attack helicopters is doing the same.
The US assets are slowly moving into position.With NATO cooperation Sicily and Naple can be used as bases of opertions too.

I believe/suspect that US personel are with the rebels and may give them a quicky tutorial in the use of mobile anti-air craft weapons. They need to neutralize Q~Daffy's air superiority.

I believe/suspect that US personel are with the rebels and may give them a quicky tutorial in the use of mobile anti-air craft weapons. They need to neutralize Q~Daffy's air superiority.

Tom you are not suggesting the US would interfere in an undeclared war are you? For shame. Stand back and let the people of Libya have their revolution otherwise it will come back to bite you in the bum.

In the good old days ,we would've already had a Colonel waiting in the wings to fill the vacume .

in the good old days ,we would've already had a Colonel waiting in the wings to fill the vacume .

Yes, well, now the vacuum is found in Washington. I've been struck lately how the Arab world lacks alternative leadership. It appears Islam creates a vacuum where you can only have one leader at a time

the vacuum is found in Washington
Who can take Obama seriously when he pontificates that it's time for Q~Daffy to go ?

Here's something to ponder...
Saddam had sent his nuclear experts to Libya to continue his WMD research program sans the watchful eyes of the UN IAEA . The removal of Saddam from office so unnerved Q~Daffy that he quickly came to an agreement to give up the nuclear and WMD program in his country. US and European experts went in and dismantled his nuclear and chemical weapon assets.

Imagine if he still had them and had been allowed to continue development in the last decade .

Not that it matters. The US has no plans to intervene beyond what it has already done (championing sanctions ,freezing assets).

The rebels are disorganized,undergunned ,cut off from supplys because Egypt controls the land routes to the rebel bases from the East ;and Q~Daffy owns the land route from the West.

Without outside intervention their fate is sealed .
The US will not act ,the Arab League voted against it . The Europeans don't have the resourse or the fortitude .
They have completely adopted the philosophy of Neville Chamberlain.
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."[ Neville Chamberlain]
Come to think of it ,that pretty much sums up Obama's policy (as long as the dictator is not already beholden to the US)
Shortly the mass executions will begin ,and people a decade from now will bemoan the fact that we didn't do enough.

John Lurch Kerry ,chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ,chimed in yesterday in support of NFZs . Chief of Staff Daley said no. The President is still voting present . He loses credibility by the hour.
Reportedly the WH wants the Saudi's to supply weapons to rebel forces . But the Saudi's have their own issues ,and will adopt the OBL axiom in supporting the 'strong horse '.
The strong horse in Libya is Q~Daffy .His forces are using heavy weaponry and air-power to turn back the rebels. Q's forces are advancing along the coastal road. The rebels are tribal factions with no central command and are disjointed without air or armor.

All of the President's demands for Q~Daffy to go will not make it so.Is the President even sincere ? If you follow the relationships from Obama's friendship to screwy Louis Farrakhan ,to Q... one has to wonder who's side the President is on.

....one has to wonder who's side the President is on.Hello again, tom:

One does have to wonder, doesn't one??

What would be the point of attacking another Middle Eastern country that didn't attack us, where we have NO vital interests, where we'd be going in ALONE, where our REAL problem is in Pakistan and NOT Libya, where we CAN'T win the wars we're already bogged down in??

I can't see a point, except a further weakening of our already overworked forces... One has to wonder WHY somebody would want that. Maybe THEIR loyalties lie somewhere else.

excon

Then he should not have opened his pie hole filling the people with thoughts of hope and change during his Cairo speech in 2009, if when push comes to shove he stays on the side line. That's the same garbage that GHW Bush did in Iraq 1990. It cost plenty of Iraqi lives .

If Q retains control of Libya the template will be set for a reversal of all these popular uprisings . The governments and the people in the ummah will know that Obama is a man of empty words. Leaders will know that they can brutally crack down on the people with impunity ,and the opportunity of a generation will be lost .

I ask you ;how far would the American Revolution have gone without foreign intervention ?

I ask you ;how far would the American Revolution have gone without foreign intervention ?Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with you about how wonderful it would be for us and our friend Israel, if the Middle East were remade in our image. I just don't think we can do it. Where would we stop? Surly there will be eruptions in Saudi Arabia. Our friend, the king will slaughter is own people. Do we go in there too? After all, we DO have a vital interest there. I know you think we should do it to Iran too...

Dude. We can't remake the WORLD - alone. I say ALONE, because if we did it, we'd need to remake the ENTIRE Middle East, and it would take much more than just us to do it. Now, I'm ready for THAT. But, if we just get rid of the tyrants we don't like, and keep the tyrants we do, then we're just whistling Dixie.

excon

So then encourge them to rebel and while we speak platitudes about throwing the yolk of oppression ;liberty freedom etc . Build their hopes up ,and when push comes to shove ,stand on the sidelines . Where is the advantage in that ?

From a nation interest perspective we'd be better off throwing our support to the kings and dictators . American realism has always sucked . It is precisely that which compelled us in the 20th century to support tyrants.
Yes Iran is watching . Couldn't blame them for thinking all our talk is empty rhetoric.

So then encourge them to rebel and while we speak platitudes about throwing the yolk of oppression ;liberty freedom etc . Build their hopes up ,and when push comes to shove ,stand on the sidelines . Where is the advantage in that ?

Yes Iran is watching . Couldn't blame them for thinking all our talk is empty rhetoric.Hello again, tom:

It's to OUR advantage NOT to get involved, when involving ourselves puts America at risk. As noble as the cause is, we CAN'T intervene in every noble cause without endangering ourselves. We simply don't have the manpower.

Yes, Iran is watching. As long as we're spread THIN, and considering getting THINNER, our talk IS empty rhetoric. They KNOW, as do you and I, that we cannot win 6 - 7 - 8 maybe 10 wars at once: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and those are just the hot ones.


excon

"They were as unstable as water, and like water would perhaps finally prevail. Since the dawn of life, in successive waves they had been dashing themselves against the coasts of flesh. Each wave was broken, but, like the sea, wore away ever so little of the granite on which it failed, and some day, ages yet, might roll unchecked over the place where the material world had been, and God would move upon the face of those waters. One such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell at Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness of time the sea shall be raised once
more." (TE Lawrence )

American realism has always sucked . It is precisely that which compelled us in the 20th century to support tyrants.
.

Yes Tom and your policy is unchanged in the 21st Century you still support tyrants whenever it suits you and whenever one of your favoured is deposed, you rant against those who dared depose him. I'm waiting for the rhetoric to turn against the popular uprising in Egypt.

Not that facts matter ,but the record shows I was clearly in favor of the popular uprising . Not that it matters . The Brotherhood inflltrated the institutions ;and now that the Pharaoh is deposed ,you are about to see Egypt move into the Jihadist camp.

Not that facts matter ,but the record shows I was clearly in favor of the popular uprising . Not that it matters . The Brotherhood inflltrated the institutions ;and now that the pharoah is deposed ,you are about to see Egypt move into the Jihadist camp.

Not your rhetoric Tom the US and Obama. If they (Egypt) decide to move into the "jihadist" camp the rhetoric will be vitrolic rather than recogition that they have made a decision for themselves.

I ask you this could China have been reformed without a communist revolution, without knowing the depths of despair? Niether I suggest can the Islamic world be reformed without first tearing itself apart and no amout of yankee B?S will stop it

Problem is... nobody really gives a damn what they do to themselves... the problem is they like to share in the misery they create for themselves in the Muslim world by spreading it wherever they can. And THAT is where the real danger lies.

Problem is...nobody really gives a damn what they do to themselves......the problem is they like to share in the misery they create for themselves in the Muslim world by spreading it wherever they can. And THAT is where the real danger lies.

Agreed, but interfering in their revolution won't endear you to them or be welcomed. Whatever the outcome, we need to stop listening to the bleeding hearts and concentrate on helping those who want to leave. It's too bad that the revolutionaries are facing a well trained and armed military force, that should have been taken into account before an opportinistic take over of a remote city. The question in Libya isn't whether Gadhafi is a despot who has been there too long, that is self evident, but whether the people have the will and ability to govern themselves.

Yes Islam has a world view that the rest of us don't like and would certainly fight to resist. However embracing their national aspirations doesn't do anything for us, opposing them does nothing either

Agreed, but interfering in their revolution won't endear you to them or be welcomed. Whatever the outcome, we need to stop listening to the bleeding hearts and concentrate on helping those who want to leave. It's too bad that the revolutionaries are facing a well trained and armed military force, that should have been taken into account before an opportinistic take over of a remote city. The question in Libya isn't whether Gadhafi is a despot who has been there too long, that is self evident, but whether the people have the will and abilty to govern themselves.

yes Islam has a world view that the rest of us don't like and would certainly fight to resist. However embracing their national aspirations doesn't do anything for us, opposing them does nothing either

Oh I agree... let them kill themselves... and if the winner threatens us afterwards... then we kill them when the time comes. There is nothing to WIN in Libya... there is no strategic advantage to us there at all.

ask you this could China have been reformed without a communist revolution, without knowing the depths of despair?

China reformed ? Bwaaahaaahaaa!!
We just witnessed 2 US reporters beaten to the point of hospitalization for attempting to cover people strolling in the streets carrying jasmine flowers .
I guarantee you that the people of China will not be permitted to demonstrate the way the people are doing on the streets of the ummah. They are MORE free than the Chinese people.
What are you talking about.. reforms?? The cadres there are the same group of dynastic Hans that have ruled the country for centuries.
The people are still slaves to a feudal system.

The people are still slaves to a feudal system.

Yes that might be but the wars, internal strife and blood letting have stopped. Don't kid yourself your own people aren't slaves to a feudal system, only difference is they can leave if they want to, but they have nowhere to go. That's the problem of running to escape your problems. Sooner or later there is nowhere left to run.

Tom might have told you this before. I knew a fellow who was up the Yangsee in 1948. He said anything the communists did to China was an improvement. So obviously he had the opportunity to observe the nationals and pre-communist China. Now we know that not all they did was an improvement, but when people are persecuted they take revenge. I have seen communist China. What I saw was a peaceful law abiding people going about their business without repression. No more cops on the street there than you see anywhere. No army in sight. That wasn't staged for my benefit. How you think a Muslim country with its squalor and repression is better is beyond me

The civil war is almost over. Q~Daffy has pushed east .The rebels ? The smart ones are crossing the border ,the rest will be mopped up and dealt with after Q~Daffy throws out the foreign press.

What is the US policy after the golfer publicly called for Q~Daffy's removal and didn't back it up ?
We did not stand by a dictator in Egypt and we did not stand by the rebels in Libya. Does anyone wonder why the Saudis would make a move on Bahrain without consulting Obama ?

The civil war is almost over. Q~Daffy has pushed east .The rebels ? The smart ones are crossing the border ,the rest will be mopped up and dealt with after Q~Daffy throws out the foreign press.

What is the US policy after the golfer publicly called for Q~Daffy's removal and didn't back it up ?
We did not stand by a dictator in Egypt and we did not stand by the rebels in Libya. Does anyone wonder why the Saudis would make a move on Bahrain without consulting Obama ?

That's because everyone except his few loyal whoreshippers see him for what he is. A Blowhard. And worse... a blowhard without a spine or moral backbone. Just a ideolog that's not smart enough to comprehend when he has made stupid mistakes.

He and his flunkies should have simply remained quiet about Libya. We have no interests there... nor a pro-western population there. Except when they want something for free anyway. No people can appreciate freedom unless they have fought and died to earn it for themselves.

Does anyone wonder why the Saudis would make a move on Bahrain without consulting Obama ?Hello again, tom:

We haven't been happy with the way things turn out over there for several century's. Why would you think this time would be different? If they didn't run the gas station, we wouldn't care.

Drill, baby, drill.

excon

Bigger question . Show me the example where an unconstrained dictator fell to popular uprising without external help ?

It doesn't happen. So either we put up or shut up. Our actions this year have been pusillanimous .It is worse than GHW Bush betrayal of the Shia in Iraq 1990 .

So either we put up or shut up. Our actions this year have been pusillanimous .It is worse than GHW Bush betrayal of the Shia in Iraq 1990 .Hello again, tom:

What you call betrayal, I call common sense... Now, if it were up to me, I'd have SAVED my troops for events just such as those that are now unfolding. However, George W. Bush decided to expend his troops on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - WITHOUT a draft and WITHOUT paying for them, I might add.

So, although I'd LIKE to go in and DO what our troops SHOULD be doing, our guys are just plain tuckered out. We're spread too thin. We can't save the Libyans WITHOUT risking ourselves... Yup, it's Bush's fault.

excon

I'll disagree with that... our soldiers didn't enlist to fight and die for other countries civil wars where we have zero interest.

Again I ask . Show me the example where an brutal absolute dictator was ousted from a country without external help ?

What was Mubarack's mistake ? What was the mistake of Palavi ?They weren't brutal enough .
Why isn't the Taliban or Saddam ruling their nations ? Because of external intervention.


What you call betrayal, I call common sense...
GHWBush incited the Shia to revolt and did not back them . That was betrayal .


I'll disagree with that... our soldiers didn't enlist to fight and die for other countries civil wars where we have zero interest.
Wikileak docs proved what we already know... that Q~Daffy personally ordered the terrorist attack on PanAm 103 .

I did not say we should intervene in Egypt or now in Bahrain . But I have said we should in Libya and Iran. The interest we have in both is that those are nations and regimes that have attacked us .

This is a matter of INTERNAL politics and not for the "World Police" to get involved in.
Yes, it may well be a pooh hole in a rubbishy state, but it is also a Sovereign Nation and that fact should be respected.
No action should be taken against either side without a clear resolution from the UN and security council.

Our President, who apparently thinks golf and NCAA brackets are the most urgent thing he has to tackle, at least had jokes ready for his Secretary of State (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/) over her frustration with his voting present on Libya.


“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”


This president is the joke, and I'm not laughing.

This is a matter of INTERNAL politics and not for the "World Police" to get involved in.
Yes, it may well be a pooh hole in a rubbishy state, but it is also a Sovereign Nation and that fact should be respected.
No action should be taken against either side without a clear resolution from the UN and security council.



And in a decade the free world will bemoan the inaction that could've prevented the next Rwanda or Darfur.

Our President, who apparently thinks golf and NCAA brackets are the most urgent thing he has to tackle, at least had jokes ready for his Secretary of State (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/) over her frustration with his voting present on Libya.



This president is the joke, and I'm not laughing.

Evita has had it. She told Blitzer she's outa there in 2012. She's gone from 'aint no way tired '
To I'm tired in 2+years as the lead diplomat for Waldo.
Ruth Marcus - Obama's 'Where's Waldo?' presidency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030105489.html)

and in a decade the free world will bemoan the inaction that could've prevented the next Rwanda or Darfur.

The problem with that is there are how many countries in the world today? How many are hopping up to spend their money and their lives to do it? The Idiot-in-chief has spent so much money the last 4 years QUADRUPLING the national debt... we really can't afford to do it unless we really get something valuable for it.

Yeah something MIGHT happen... but anyone that's going to point fingers can be told "Well why didn't YOU do something about it then?" We aren't the only country with an Army in the world.

Iraq makes sense... Afghanistan makes sense... Libya? Not a chance. Nor would Yemen or Egypt, or any other Muslim majority nation for that matter.

Like a rich spoiled kid... they can't appreciate what they have if its handed to them. THe poor kid that had to work and earn everything understands the value of things... Freedom is just like that.

Like it or not we lead the free world... or used to.

Why not do a Panama like action?. decapitate the snake and move on. I understand Curley. The Brits couldn't wait to free al-Megrahi so BP could make a contract with Q~Daffy . But the US ? Our only relationship with the guy has been a hostile one .

Even if we got the oil fields... Obama and his hacks would demand they be capped and not allow us to get any of it.

Just like they do with our own massive oil reserves.

And it does come down to the devil you know may be better than the devil you don't.

He's been a royal A-hole... but since Regan bombed his house and killed his kid... he's been a far more quiet A-hole.

I'd rather send a cruise missile up Hugo Chavezes A-hole before we did it to the Libyan Lunatic.

The devil we know blew up US soldiers in Germany ;blew up a US commercial airliner , was the nuclear laboratory for Saddam until we attacked Iraq... then he temporarily became compliant because we had a President who's words meant something .

I don't care about their oil. Let Italy have all of it.

The devil we know will align himself with jihadistan . That's what we do know of him.

Why not do a Panama like action ? ...decapitate the snake and move onHello again, tom:

Like Iraq was supposed to be a quick in and out?? Dude. Wars don't happen that way. Who is the opposition leader we support? Do we KNOW any of 'em? What if we pick a guy like Ben Laden or Karzai?

In fact, we DID pick Ben Laden, didn't we, and we armed him well? How did that work out for us?

excon

The devil we know blew up US soldiers in Germany ;blew up a US commercial airliner , was the nuclear laboratory for Saddam until we attacked Iraq....then he temporarily became compliant because we had a President who's words meant something .

I don't care about their oil. Let Italy have all of it.

The devil we know will align himself with jihadistan . That's what we do know of him.

Sure he might... but what about who would likely take over? For them it would almost be a sure thing. A buttcrack of a country... poverty, low education levels AND Muslim lunatics thinking they have a right to everything... Not a recipe for Democracy there.

IRAN stands a fairly good chance of a real democracy if the Religious nut leaders and their terrorist president got knocked off next week. I don't see much hope for that in these other places however.


That's why I used the devil you know vs the devil you don't. Don't see a positive outcome either way. You could end up with a repeat of the Taliban in Afghanisan.

Bigger question . Show me the example where an unconstrained dictator fell to popular uprising without external help ?

It doesn't happen. So either we put up or shut up. Our actions this year have been pusillanimous .It is worse than GHW Bush betrayal of the Shia in Iraq 1990 .

I stand by this statement . Q~Daffy has just set the template for all the dictators and autocrats in the ummah . They know the free world will not stand up to them.

Like Iraq was supposed to be a quick in and out?? Dude. Wars don't happen that way. Who is the opposition leader we support?
Did we care who ran Panama after we grabbed Noriega ? Of course in the bad ole days when our CIA did their job right we would've had the next Colonel waiting in the wings.

When NATO decided Slobodan Milosevic had to go did they care who replaced him ?

Did we care who ran Panama after we grabbed Noriega ?Hello again, tom:

So, go in, grab him, and that'll be that? If I remember correctly, and I do, we DID fire on the Panamanian Army, and they folded like a cheap suit... Somehow, I don't think the Libyans are going to do that.

excon

This is what I know . The US is abdicating it's role as leader of the free world. I don't care if you want to go through the charade of getting NATO or UN blessings.. the US has to lead . Which nation is that alternative ? In this case France has tried . Even the Aussies are making firmer statements .
Libya: Towards Sudan's Darfur type conflict? - Afrik-news.com : Africa news, Maghreb news - The african daily newspaper (http://www.afrik-news.com/article19128.html)
I tell you ,it's embarrassing that K.Rudd and Sarkozy are showing more spine than the US President.

But that is the new world order. Who will fill the super power vacume ? It won't be a free nation that's for sure .
If you think the world will be a better place or that the US can retreat to fortress America and be safe you are in for a rude awakening .

This is what I know . The US is abdicating it's role as leader of the free world. Pssst... you're not and no one wants you to be. You're living in the past.

Go back to turning sand into oil .At least that's constructive.

go back to turning sand into oil .At least that's constructive.And we sell it to you. LOL!

Ironically ,if we are consigned to be dependent on foreign sources ,I'd rather it be Canada.

Breaking... the feckless UN just approved all necessary force. Too little too late.

ironically ,if we are consigned to be dependent on foreign sources ,I'd rather it be Canada.

Breaking .... the feckless UN just approved all necessary force. Too little too late.

I want to see the UN forces get their butts kicked. They are about as fearsome as the French Army.


I can hear it now... "Stop that or we will be forced to sponsor a resolution condeming you.!"

go back to turning sand into oil .At least that's constructive.

I expect that's preferrable to turning sea water and arctic tundra into oil.

It would seem that daffy duck is about to push a few rag tag rebels into the sea. This has been likened to Ruwanda but there are no millions being jeopardised here. No atrocities on a genocidal scale, in fact the body count has been surprisingly moderate. What we have is a few hundred ill equipped rebels hoping that the US will come on side and pour millions in arms and aid into their cause as they did in Afghanistan. The US doesn't love freedom enough to liberate the oppressed masses of the Earth. The UN isn't interested in doing anything more that staging a side show, there has been no suggestion of peace keepers landing because the rebels have told the world to stay out of it, but they expect to be protected. There is no constitutional protection in Libya, no bill of rights, such as the right to take over with arms, the right of protest with guns in your hands. What we have here is what in other places would be called treason

This isn't about oil, certainly not US oil supplies, but about opportunism

Breaking... the feckless UN just approved all necessary force.
You missed and important part here at the end.


the UN backed "all necessary measures", short of an invasion, to protect civilians.

The UN resolution rules out a foreign occupation force in any part of Libya.
BBC News - Libya: UK forces prepare after UN no-fly zone vote (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12770467)

So anyway the UK and France with the assistance of some loacl rag heads are getting prepared for this.
Should interesting as our LAST capable aircraft carrier has been decommissioned along with it's harriers.

I guess they are going to fly out of Cyprus then..
That's one hell of a commute to work ;)

The US will provide logistics and targeting from our carrier task force. We will probably fly AWAC and assume central command .We may even pock mark their runways with cruise missiles.

In other words we will provide most of the muscle but the 'international community ' will get credit.

Notable to me is the nations that abstained ,rather than vetoed.

Again this is too little too late. I agree with Sec Def Gates that the battlefield has to be prepared before a no fly zone begins. This should've begun when Q~Daffy was shooting protesters from the sky,not at the tail end of his successful counter-revolution.

Pssst...you're not and no one wants you to be. You're living in the past.

I see Canada is going to contribute some planes to the effort . What do they have crop dusters ?

I see Canada is going to contribute some planes to the effort . What do they have crop dusters ?If that makes you feel better about yourself then yea, we have crop dusters.

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa says Libya is declaring an immediate cease-fire and stopping all military operations.

Libya declares cease-fire and says it will stop military operations as the West mobilizes - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libya-declares-cease-fire-and-says-it-will-stop-military-operations-as-the-west-mobilizes/2011/03/18/ABijLoo_story.html)

See told you the Canadian crop dusters would be useful, daffy is clearly scared by them ;)

Hello again,

Obama is soooo strong, all he has to do is play golf, and Q~Daffy quits...

excon

See told you the Canadian crop dusters would be useful, daffy is clearly scared by them ;)That and I never want my country to have the military complex that the US does. There are better ways to spend public money.

See told you the Canadian crop dusters would be useful, daffy is clearly scared by them ;)That and I never want my country to have the military complex that the US does. There are better ways to spend public money.

On really important things like FREE health care for ALL ;)

On really important things like FREE health care for ALL ;)Well it's not free of course, it's universal health care paid by our taxes, but you knew that, others don't.

Lol Peace through Strength Obama Style.

Evita is the one in the administration that led . Obama was... present .

I can see the 3AM phone call already ...." Hello Louey ...this is Barack .... I'm going on spring break to Rio ...could you call your friend Mummar and ask him to cool it for a week so I can enjoy it ? "..... cool .... I owe you man !"

I can see the 3AM phone call already ...." Hello Louey ...this is Barack .... I'm going on spring break to Rio ...could you call your friend Mummar and ask him to cool it for a week so I can enjoy it ? "..... cool .... I owe you man !" OMG that is so funny! LOL!

lol Peace through Strength Obama StyleHello again,

Peace? Nahh. We got a civil war, and it ain't over. If it is, we ain't ahead. We've got a divided Libya, one side run by a dictator who is STILL in power, and the other side run by________ (fill in the blank). Al Quaida? Iran? The Brotherhood? Some other radical Muslim? A friend of ours?

Nahhh. We didn't win.

excon

Yeah and Q~Daffy's the good guy. Why is it that you supported their popular uprise early on when they were the' February 17 group' and now surmise they are some of our worse enemies ? Back then they were the freedom fighters. Why would you support them then and not now ? If they are who you say then shouldn't we do what we can to support Q~Daffy ?

I do know who runs the country. A man supported by a single tribe and a bunch of mercs and weapons he hired and bought with petro-dollars.

Yeah and Q~Daffy's the good guy. Why is it that you supported their popular uprise early on when they were the' February 17 group' and now surmise they are some of our worse enemies ? Hello again, tom:

I ALWAYS support an uprising against a tyrant, unless the people doing the uprising are tyrants themselves...

Here again, if our intelligence services were DOING THEIR JOB instead of snooping on you and me, we would KNOW who the leader of the rebel forces is in Libya... But, we don't. Now, I HOPE we're supporting democrats, but I don't know. At least Q-Daffy wasn't attacking us. I don't know about the new guys.

We thought Ben Laden was a democrat, and that's why we gave him guns.. Do you want to do the same thing in Libya.

excon

You are perpetrating a false myth about us supporting OBL . It never happened . We never gave weapons to the Arab fighters in Afghanistan.


I ALWAYS support an uprising against a tyrant, unless the people doing the uprising are tyrants themselves...
You supported the uprising in Egypt knowing the Ikhwan would likely dominate a post Mubarack Egypt. Now you are concerned that they may dominate a post-Q~Daffy Libya.

You are perpetrating a false myth about us supporting OBL . It never happened . We never gave weapons to the Arab fighters in Afghanistan. Hello again, tom:

Couple things... Yes, we did ARM the mujahideen (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html).

I'm not worried about the Brotherhood, nor am I NOT worried about them. I just don't know. I WISH I knew. I WISH our intelligence service were checking THEM out instead of you and me... I guess not knowing what's going on in the world is the price we pay for spying on OURSELVES.

Oh well.

excon

Addressed this before .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-protesters-247746-2.html


Bobby let me take this opportunity to correct you about this growing myth that we either favored OBL or created him. The United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs" ;those fighters that came into the Afghan conflict from the Arab world .
the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden .]

Ayman al-Zawahiri (2nd in command to OBL ) , confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding or help .

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."
"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ....""Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization."[Knights Under the Prophet's Banner]

I'm pleased to say that despite leading the charge to restrict daffy duck, Australia will not contribute any military forces this time

Hello again,

Ok, now were in... But, what the hell are we supposed to do? There is conflicting policy ALL over the place. Plus, the president is acting WITHOUT congressional approval.

Are we going to make him leave, or is it OK for him to stay? I don't believe in tiptoe war.. Do you?

excon

Ask Evita ;she's running the country.

Isn't it amazing that getting UN approval was more important than getting Congressional ?

The Congressional approval of course is a concern . I'm sure he'll invoke the War Power's Act for the present ;but will ,if he intends to see this through,need
Congressional support .

Consider also that for the Iraq war there was a Congressional Resolution ,and President Bush had a multinational force of 30 nations and 19 more that participated in non-combat roles .
This coalition of the wiling consists of France ,UK ,USA ,Canada I hear ,Italy ,and the Arab League (which will bow out in the next few days... evidently they didn't know you needed weapons to enforce a no-fly zone).
I got a question... where are the half million progressive protesters on the street yelling 'blood for oil " ? Guess the golf President gets a mulligan.

To me the policy and the goal are clear ,regime change. The President stated it emphatically that is the goal.
Whether that can be achieved by no-fly zones and targeting his military assets from the air is the question. Slobodan Milosevic was brought down from an air campaign ,that is the only example I can provide. Maybe one of these strikes will be a decapitation attack.
I think if it works it will be because the mercenary forces that Q~Daffy mustered will bug out if under enough military pressure.

Isn't it amazing that getting UN approval was more important than getting Congressional ?

.

I think you are forgetting process here Tom and a specific focus, BO has the responsibility to convince your congress, Hilary has the responsibility to convince the UN and your allies. You need to remember you have treaty oblligations which are binding on your nation whatever opinion your congress might hold. Those treaties were made by your congress. No further approval should be necessary.

So if the international community decides there is a rogue nation to be dealt with that is a whole lot better than unilateral or preemptive action. Daffy's argument isn't with the US, at least it wasn't, but with his own rebels. However the use of overwhelming force by principally the US now gives him an argument that the US is pursuing its own objectives here, however much they might be saying they are not leading, etc. He has already played the crusader card and from where I stand he may well be right, the enforced democracy crusade is on the march again.

What treaties ? This isn't a NATO operation . Just because a UN resolution authorizes it doesn't mean participation is mandatory. Your nation is not involved even though your UN guy clearly spoke in favor of it. I don't care what treaty we are involved in . It doesn't trump Constitutional law.

Say what you want about Bush and Iraq. There were multiple UN resolutions ,many more nations in the coalition ,and Congressional approval that was debated before action was taken .

Excon's argument has been that even that wasn't sufficient because there wasn't a formal declaration of war(ie. "we declare war on Libya") . I dispute that .I don't think the Constitution spells out the wording needed in the declaration .But at least Bush recognized his duty to get Congressional approval.

Now , no doubt when the President gets back from Spring Break he'll get around to invoking the constitutionally challenged 'War Power's Act'. When he does that it gives him a 60 day window to either get Congressional approval ,or bug out .

I don't think US involvement will last that long . Hopefully Daffy assumes room temperature by then.

I don't think US involvement will last that long . Hopefully Daffy assumes room temperature by then.

Daffy has understood the implications of another bombing of his compound, seems BO learnt something from his predecessors. The whole thing is a storm in a tea cup that's why we are not going, nothing for a Navy to do, and we don't want a repeat of Trobruk, besides we might have to retake Christmas Island.

Daffy has realised that talk won't cut it this time, I expect he will turn up in VeneZeala or some other God forsaken place where money and guns speak.

There is no glory in this one so I don't expect a repeat of the shores of Tripoli from the US, been there, done that. It only needs a second rate army like the French to wrap this one up, after all it is their oil supply that is in jeopardy

The French would whup Aussie in a fight.

The French would whup Aussie in a fight.

The possibility is they might out gun us but they haven't shown an ability to win many fights. They have shown a predeliction to gather up someoneelse's firepower in Libya

Are we gonna make him leave, or is it ok for him to stay? I don't believe in tiptoe war.. Do you?

exconHave to agree with that point... plenty examples of so called "Measured responses" being a recipe for disaster.

You go in to win... you don't worry about using a few more weapons than the opposition has. Tieing one arm behind your back to make the fight fair is a concept losers like, and winners never use.

You go in... kick butt and if the so-called "Innocents" don't get out of the way fast enough... then its on them. Because the other side doesn't give a hoot about taking out "innocents".

Hello again,

I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.

Don't get me wrong. I AM for the underdog, and I'd support 'em militarily, too, if only we could change the world by FORCE. I'm just a tad doubtful that we could. So, since we CAN'T, why even dip our toes into the water?

Plus, I'm highly doubtful about the "humanitarian" aspect of this war... If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?

In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?

I haven't even addressed the Constitutional violations this war has engendered, but I WILL as we proceed. This war is absolutely ILLEGAL.

excon

Has he earned his Nobel yet?

If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?

I note that many people are for intervention in 'that other place.' Darfur was the popular one a few years ago after the fact ;so was Rhwanda. There are people now who are bemoaning this intervention who say we should've intervened in Congo. If we didn't intervene in Haiti years ago it would've been a negative .(note that the exile Aristide flew back in their this week to make trouble ) .
The Ivory Coast has an active humanitarian 'Peace keeping" force on the ground already . When the Israeli's began to pound Hezbollah into submission the world rushed to intervene .

I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.


Maybe Jillian Assange has some secret insights he'll reveal.
Let's put it this way. The Libyan oil is not consequential enough to be a factor. Yet ,a nation like France ;which led the opposition in the UN to the Iraq war is leading this effort by all accounts.
My guess is that they know something about the Duck and the threat he poses to lead the charge.

BTW . The US went into WWI because a civilian transport (a ship ) was destroyed killing Americans .

I'll also repeat something that is pertinent like it or not. The American Revolution would've failed without foreign intervention. Jefferson and Franklin spent the war years desperately looking for funding and military assistance.
The French and Dutch among others came to our assistance. Did it work out for the French ? They ended up in a revolution of their own and a war against the US within 15 years. But I'm sure if you take the long view. It served them well.

Now we have spent the last century promoting the freedom model over the model of tyranny . We have more than once used force to promote it. You yourself have said some of our biggest failures have been when we took a realpolitik view and saw our national interest in status quo and stability .


In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?

I don't know. I think the Petraeus Doctrine is being invoked in the strategy... ie protect the civilians .
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JanFeb06/Petraeus1.pdf
He doesn't recommend a heavy foot print because liberation armies quicky become occupation armies . You need to assist them towards their goal of liberation.

Or as Lawrence of Arabia said :
Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is. It may take them longer and it may not be as good as you think, but if it is theirs, it will be better.

I'll also repeat something that is pertinent like it or not. The American Revolution would've failed without foreign intervention. Jefferson and Franklin spent the war years desperately looking for funding and military assistance. Hello again, tom:

I don't dislike it. It's just apples, when we're talking about oranges... Jefferson and Franklin were PROVEN democrats. When France invested in us, the outcome was predictable... France was NOT guessing.

Here's what YOU don't like. If our intelligence services were spying on the Lybyan's instead of YOU and ME, maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone.

excon

maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone.


I'd say the same applies to Egypt.Actually worse because we knew ahead of time the likely outcome would be the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This weekend's vote in Egypt confirms that they will play a huge role in future Egyptian leadership.

As far as I can tell the only consistent policy until now was that if the people had an uprising against nations we have friendly relationships with ;it's a good thing worthy of our support . If it's a nation that has been hostile for the last 3 decades then we should just butt out .

I take the opposite logic. If the nation has an authoritarian leadership that is hostile to us ,it advances our security to support the people when they rise up regardless of what the future may bring.
We are late to this game. Palin was calling for no fly zones when Daffy was shooting the Libyan people protesting with his air assets.

However ;I am leaning towards agreement with you on the Constitutional issue.

This whole thing is typical american overkill, instaed of enforcing a no fly zone which can be done by shooting down any offending aircraft the military led by the US has opted for destroying the country's military capability. What are they afraid of? Some obsolete aircraft and air defence systems? The Libyian navy?

I can understand enforcing a cease fire but no one has mentioned that beyond the first day and it can't be done without ground forces. As soon as Daffy's forces were chastised for continued fighting the rebels attempted to consoldate previous gains, so cease fire wasn't in their plans. This is a one sided battle and the UN may as well issue an ultimatium now. Daffy would do well to remember what happened the last time a regime threatened the US with arming the population and fight to the death

As far as I can tell ,the only consistent goal articulated has been Obama's call for Daffy and sons to leave(after Obama did his obligatory Hamlet-like waffling ) . If it was being done for civilian protection then it would've been implemented in February.
I have no problem with regime change. But shouldn't helping the rebellion begun back around the time of this op ,when the regime was on the ropes ?

This whole thing is typical american overkill, instaed of enforcing a no fly zone which can be done by shooting down any offending aircraft the military led by the US has opted for destroying the countries military capability. What are they afraid of? some obsolete aircraft and air defence systems? the Libyian navy?

I can understand enforcing a cease fire but noone has mentioned that beyond the first day and it can't be done with ground forces. As soon as Daffy's forces were chastised for continued fighting the rebels attempted to consoldate previous gains, so cease fire wasn't in their plans. This is a one sided battle and the UN may as well issue an ultimatium now. Daffy would do well to remember what happened the last time a regime threatened the US with arming the population and fight to the death

It actually has more to do with destroying command and control and ground radar and weapons tracking abilities. Otherwise anyone flying (our people at this point) is at risk to anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missles. And is SOP when establishing a No-fly zone as a result.

Not overkill. Overkill would have been carpet bombing the entire country as a precursor to a no-fly zone being established.

We are also targeting his ground based armor.. T-72 tanks etc. Hope there is some special forces on the ground to coordinate rebel movements with the strategic bombing.

We are also targetting his ground based armor .. T-72 tanks etc. Hope there is some special forces on the ground to coordinate rebel movements with the strategic bombing.

But there are no american troops involved, BO said so, so it must be right. This thing is beginning to look like a CIA operation

Hello again,

This is a disaster for the US, in more ways that I can mention... But, I'll mention a few.

Obama is, at the VERY least, legally required to NOTIFY congress of his intention to take the nation to war. He sent a letter AFTER he invaded. It's a big mistake. It makes the war unconstitutional.

We went in to SAVE people from extermination. If we DON'T take Kaddafy out, what makes us think they won't be exterminated when we leave??

Therefore, the in and out is BS. The NO ground troops is BS.

If we're so interested in saving people from their brutal dictator, why aren't we saving the Baharanians, the Syrians, or the Yemeni's? We're not because Obama is LYING. Kucinnich is right. Obama should be impeached.

excon

I agree with most of what you say about the end game. Daffy has to go . It can be done w/o US ground troops or a very small foot print as long as there is no occupation at the end.

You are correct in that Obama blew it big time by committing without Congressional authorization. Not sure that it makes the move unconstitutional(we have had limited interventions in the past without Congressional approval) ;but it would've been the right thing to do politically . He would've gotten the support of the Kerry Democrats and most of the Republicans .It would've been a bi-partisan international policy.

I think there are some people in his circle of advisors ;Evita , Samantha Power ,Susan Rice who have led him to this decision. His male advisors did not want to do this action. Power has been long outspoken in favor of 'humanitarian ' intervention.

Despite the denials ,it was apparent before the intervention began that regime change is the only acceptable outcome the President will accept .

Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy | STRATFOR (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110322&utm_content=readmore&elq=055370026dc444fb84678f5defbe91eb)

It is an interesting evolution. He became President (or at least the Democrat candidate ) by being the candidate who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning (at least that was his narrative... hard to say what he would've done if he was in the US Senate at the time instead of the Illinois Senate .)

When speaking of his opposition he said :

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

Remove Saddam's name from this and replace it with Daffy and the contradiction is obvious. Iraq was the "wrong 'war ,the "dumb "war .

Maybe if there was a 1 year build up to the conflict ,with the forging of a real coalition ,taking his case to the people ,securing Congressional ,AND UN relevent authorizations ,perhaps the President would've had the opportunity to make his case to the American people .......that's what President Bush did in his "rush to war".

That's right ,the libs said there was a 'rush to war'. They called it 'unilateral' even though the active and supporting allies numbered close to 50 nations . Even though there were 17 supporting UN resolutions ,they said the US was "thumbing it's nose" at the "international community" .

Where are the 100's of thousand anti-war protesters ?
Kucinich ,Michael Moore and Ralph Nadar are the ones out there with the 'No blood for oil' signs and the paper mache puppet heads.

Hello again, tom:

Because Obama was able to accomplish in a couple weeks, what it took Bush a year or more to do, doesn't change the wrongheadedness of EITHER war.

One of your favorite libs, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post answered my previous inquiry about why NOT those other country's. Here's what he said:

"Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not.. .

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power."

He's right on. Impeach Obama!

excon

Perhaps . He excluded Syria and Iran ;both nations I'd welcome regime change AND have attacked and killed Americans AND have all but declared war on the US (as has Daffy over the course of 40 years ) . Truth is that libs like Robinson like it when America's friends get defeated and deplore it when America's enemies lose.

Bahrain is a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia.

Ex, your neocon president has finally decided the goal in Libya is regime change. He won't say it in so many words but that's the goal, "installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission).”

The Obama Doctrine says that if the "international community " says it's OK to do a regime change or a 'humanitarian intervention ', then US troops can be committed ;as long as we can pretend we aren't taking the lead. To him ,it is a must to get 'legal authority ' 1st from the UN .It's also evidently OK to ignore the constitutional requirements of getting legal authority from Congress.

When the UN gives the go ahead to take out Israel ,he'll go along ,so long as a nation like Iran takes the command.

More than 50% of the people would like Obama to be out of office... will HE leave?

More than 50% of the people would like Obama to be out of office.....will HE leave?
To be replaced by whom?

To be replaced by whom?

To be determined... but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. And is pretty good at it.


Yeah I know constitutionally that's not how it works.

To be determined.....but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. Hello smoothy:

That disqualifies him.. Government ISN'T business and can't be run like one. Oh, you have to know about MONEY, and running a large organization, but that's as close as it gets.

Biden would get the job as far as I'm concerned (Constitutionally too). I don't know what possed Obama.. He had time to go to the UN. He had time to consult with NATO. He had time to talk with the Arab League - but he didn't have time to consult with congress?? He should go.

excon

.....but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. And is pretty good at it.
Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump#Financial_problems_.281989.E2.80.9319 97.29)

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump#2008_financial_crisis)

Hello smoothy:

That disqualifies him.. Government ISN'T business and can't be run like one. Oh, you have to know about MONEY, and running a large organization, but that's as close as it gets.

Biden would get the job as far as I'm concerned (Constitutionally too). I dunno what possed Obama.. He had time to go to the UN. He had time to consult with NATO. He had time to talk with the Arab League - but he didn't have time to consult with congress??? He should go.

exconObama never ran anything in his life... and his Government experience was voting Present most of the time.


Yeah I know Biden is next in Line... and Bohner would move up to VP.

How do you think Gerald Ford made it to be president... I was old enough to see that happen. I know you was too, being older than me you was likely more aware of it than me at that time.

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump#Financial_problems_.281989.E2.80.9319 97.29)

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump#2008_financial_crisis)

Wikipedia isn't really all that reliable a source... even if it might be convenient.

Trump is still far more successful then Obama ever was. Obama is an utter failure as president... and as a leader. What did he ever succeed at that disn't involve scamming someone?

At least Trump has made a lot of money... Obama has just wasted record ammounts of money. He did quadruple the national debt in just 2 years time. Trump understands a buget... Obama thinks they are optional.

Obama never ran anything in his life.....and his GOverment experience was voting Present most of the time.
Voting Present in Illinois and a few other states means, "Take it back to the drawing board and fix it, you dummy! It's unacceptable as it stands"

Voting Present in Illinois does NOT mean "I abstain."

Wikipedia isn't really all that reliable a source......even if it might be convienient.Hello again, smoothy:

Wikipedia is the epitome of the free market at work. You're not saying, are you, that it needs regulation to be reliable? Parrish the thought.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Wikipedia is the epitome of the free market at work. You're not saying, are you, that it needs regulation to be reliable?? Parrish the thought.

excon

It is what it is... I actually know one of the many editors.

Voting Present in Illinois and a few other states means, "Take it back to the drawing board and fix it, you dummy! It's unacceptable as it stands"

Voting Present in Illinois does NOT mean "I abstain."

Voting present means he doesn't have the balls or conviction to vote yes or no.

Voting present means he doesn't have the balls or conviction to vote yes or no.
Not true, smoothy. Illinois doesn't work that way. It is as I had explained in my earlier post.

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill.

Not true, smoothy. Illinois doesn't work that way. It is as I had explained in my earlier post.

Fact is... He was fence straddling. If he was FOR something he should vote yes... if he was against it she should vote no... anything else is waffling.

Fact is..... He was fence straddling. If he was FOR something he should vote yes....if he was against it she should vote no....anything else is waffling.
You've never said "I'm not sure" or "maybe, lemme think about it" or "you need to work on that more before I can agree with it"? You immediately agree or disagree with every question you are asked? (If you say yes to that, I want to be connected with your wife.)

Saying only yes or no in a state legislature's voting is even more dicey than saying only yes or no in a marriage.

I would rather "waffle," as you call it, than give a yes or no that later comes back to bite me.

To be replaced by whom?

Doesn't seem to be an issue anywhereelse why should it be an issue in the US or is it the alternatives are too frightening to contemplate

Doesn't seem to be an issue anywhereelse why should it be an issue in the US or is it the alternatives are too frightening to contemplate
I was being facetious.

The record of his campaign donations indicates that he may be using the conservative talking points without conviction.
Here are some of the recent ones :

•11/8/2010- $2,700-Democratic Party of Delaware
•10/21/2010 -$2,400- Anthony Weiner (D)
•9/20/2010- $10,000 – Democratic Committee of New York City
•2/18/2010 – $2,000- Anthony Weiner (D)
•4/7/2010 -$1,000 Charles Schumer (D)
•3/26/2009- $2,400 – Harry Reid (D)
•8/11/2009 -$2,000 – Bill Nelson (D)
•5/20/2009 – $2,000 -Charles Schumer (D)

Out of his 31 donations 21 of them went to very liberal Democrats or Democratic Committees, 7 went to Republicans, 2 went to Independents (both of those to Charlie Crist who defected from the Republicans ).
Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php?capcode=tw5tk&name=trump&state=NY&zip=&employ=&cand=)

I hope this gets back on point . But to answer the question To be replaced by whom?
Right now there are 2 serious candidates . Both would be a better President ;but forced to vote between them ,I'd go with T-Paw.

You've never said "I'm not sure" or "maybe, lemme think about it" or "you need to work on that more before I can agree with it"? You immediately agree or disagree with every question you are asked? (If you say yes to that, I want to be connected with your wife.)

Saying only yes or no in a state legislature's voting is even more dicey than saying only yes or no in a marriage.

I would rather "waffle," as you call it, than give a yes or no that later comes back to bite me.

When there is a vote on a bill... the correct answer is to vote for it to pass it or vote no to reject it. There isn't a third, fourth or even fith option. If they don't have the balls to take a stand... then they should stay home that day, or resign.. they aren't cut out for politics.

If you don't agree with it... you vote no, fix the problem then bring it back up for a vote.

Anything else is a political cowards way out to try to claim to be on both sides of the fence... or neither. A position that as a politician... you can't possibly be in. It's their job to be on one side or the other.

Its their job to be on one side or the other.Hello again, smoothy:

Still waiting for the published job description for a state senator... You SEEM to know their job pretty good, but I think you're making it up... In fact, you have NO clue what the job of a state senator is, or not.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Still waiting for the published job description for a state senator... You SEEM to know their job pretty good, but I think you're making it up... In fact, you have NO clue what the job of a state senator is, or not.

excon

Well, apparently in Michigan... they aren't even required to be in the state, much less show up for work and still get paid. Its universally assumed, if you don't show up for something you are paid to do... you are committing an act of fraud... be it a contractor... Teacher... dishwasher... or senator.

I need that job. I'll worry less about how long I'll have the job I actually have to show up to, before I can expect to be paid.

I actually have to show up to, before I can expect to be paid.Hello again, smoothy:

Your frame of reference appears to be blue collar. After all, you can't pound a nail if you're not THERE. But, some workers don't have a "there". They can actually "show up" by picking up the phone, or answering an email. That can be done from ANY place in the world, these days - even a un-disclosed location in Illinois.

excon

Both would be a better President ;but forced to vote between them ,I'd go with T-Paw.There is no one named "T-Paw".

Meet T-Paw (http://www.timpawlenty.com/node/1)

Any questions?

Any questions?Hello again, steve:

Yup. Does that mean we can refer to SA-rah P-alin, as SAP?? I think it does.

excon

Meet T-Paw (http://www.timpawlenty.com/node/1)

Any questions?Can you use real names next time? Makes it easier for everyone.

Hello again, steve:

Yup. Does that mean we can refer to SA-rah P-alin, as SAP??? I think it does.

excon

I don't think Sarah promotes herself that way as Pawlenty does, do you?

Can you use real names next time? Makes it easier for everyone.

What, you don't know how to Google?

What, you don't know how to Google?Well I did notice that Ruli said something stupid again, Rowser brought it to my attention.

But why make people Google every lame nickname in your posts?

I don't think Sarah promotes herself that way as Pawlenty does, do you?Hello again, steve:

Nahhh, but Hillary Clinton doesn't promote herself as Evita, either, but we use it here. Soooo, when in Rome...

excon

Hello again, steve:

Nahhh, but Hillary Clinton doesn't promote herself as Evita, either, but we use it here. Soooo, when in Rome.....

exconSame with q~daffy, clintoon, and all the other stupid nicknames the conservatives use here. Child-like mentality.

But why make people Google every lame nickname in your posts?

I didn't have to Google it, I knew who he was referring to as I'm sure probably everyone but you did as well.

I'm sure probably everyone but you did as well.Hello again, steve:

In defense of my friend who needs no defending, he IS a Canuck. Do you know who's running for what up there? I don't.

excon

When there is a vote on a bill....the correct answer is to vote for it to pass it or vote no to reject it. There isn't a third, fourth or even fith option. If they don't have the balls to take a stand.....then they should stay home that day, or resign..they aren't cut out for politics.

Illinois isn’t the only state where lawmakers can register their displeasure without actually voting against a bill. Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas also allow “present” votes or similar options in at least one chamber, according to a recent review of chamber rules by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Hawaii, legislators can cast a “kanalua” (a Hawaiian word meaning “doubt”) vote during roll calls, essentially a pass. But after going through the roll call two or three times, depending on the chamber, the “kanalua” vote eventually counts as a “yes.”

In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

It's a way state congressmen can express dissatisafaction on pork riders stuck onto otherwise good bills, like let's increase education spending as long as City Hall gets a new golf course.

Hello again, steve:

In defense of my friend who needs no defending, he IS a Canuck. Do you know who's running for what up there? I don't.

The Canuck has an opinion on most everything American we discuss so that's no excuse.

The Canuck has an opinion on most everything American we discuss so that's no excuse.Since you guys dominate the Current Events board there's nothing much else to opine upon there. Plus half the time I'm correcting the disinformation you spew.

Since you guys dominate the Current Events board there's nothing much else to opine upon there. Plus half the time I'm correcting the disinformation you spew.

Gee, if you're always correcting us that's even more the reason you should have known.

Biden: Impeach the resident the goes to war without congressional approval

_dRFJ6CF2Mw


Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.

Biden: Impeach the resident the goes to war without congressional approval
We're not at war.

Yeah, he's just polishing his Nobel.

Yeah, he's just polishing his Nobel.What does that even mean?

Since you guys dominate the Current Events board there's nothing much else to opine upon there. Plus half the time I'm correcting the disinformation you spew.

Feel free to post current events from Canada.Something like... umm... your recent victory in the World Women's Curling Championships .

Feel free to post current events from Canada.Something like ...umm... your recent victory in the World Women's Curling Championships .
What you call "Current Events" is usually related to trolling your conservative sites and digging up something you can post that makes fun of liberals - <yawn> It's just constant whining about what's wrong with your country. I'm kind of proud that Canadians on this board don't feel a need to do that.

What you call "Current Events" is usually related to trolling your conservative sites and digging up something you can post that makes fun of liberals - <yawn> It's just constant whining about what's wrong with your country. I'm kind of proud that Canadians on this board don't feel a need to do that.

I'm no troll. You go check the huge variety of sources we use and then come back and insult us about something else.

We're not at war.

Are we at War in Afphanistan and Iraq? Libya did less to us in recent decades than either of those two. I consider them much the same... only two are further along than the other.

I'm no troll. You go check the huge variety of sources we use and then come back and insult us about something else.Never said you were a troll, just a one trick pony.

Never said you were a troll, just a one trick pony.

Pot meet kettle.

Are we at War in Afphanistan and Iraq?
Did Congress declare war in either country?

Yes in both cases .

But we aren't at war with Libya.

Are we bombing Libya? Yes. Sounds like war to me.

Are we bombing Libya? Yes. Sounds like war to me.
What are we bombing?

What are we bombing?

Another country.

Another country.
Who, what, when, why, where, and with whom?

But we aren't at war with Libya.

Not constitutionally

Did someone say bringing this back on subject, last time I looked the caption said Libya
Obama forgetting the lessons of Iraq - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/23/chaffetz.obama.libya/index.html?hpt=T1) Noting the cost of missiles used so far could it be said that Libya is justified as part of BO's economic stimulation package

Who, what, when, why, where, and with whom?

Have you not been paying attention?

Have you not been paying attention?
I didn't think you had been.

Did someone say bringing this back on subject, last time I looked the caption said Libya
Obama forgetting the lessons of Iraq - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/23/chaffetz.obama.libya/index.html?hpt=T1) Noting the cost of missiles used so far could it be said that Libya is justified as part of BO's economic stimulation package

Next they will claim he's helping the unemployment numbers doing it too, by keeping pilots employed.

Next they will claim he's helping the unemployment numbers doing it too, by keeping pilots employed.Hello again, smoothy:

In fact, destroying military equipment, ours OR theirs is VERY good for our economy. It puts LOTS of people to work.. You CAN see that, can't you? It isn't the preferred way to stimulate the economy, at least not from my perspective.


Did ya see Newt's flip flop??? (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/03/23/gingrich-flip-flop-on-no-fly/) Before Obama did anything Newt WANTED a no fly zone.. AFTER Obama did something, Newt DIDN'T want a no fly zone... This is the guy who was cheating on his wife at the same time he was criticizing Clinton for cheating on his wife... I guess he thinks we're not paying attention...

excon

Next they will claim he's helping the unemployment numbers doing it too, by keeping pilots employed.

Well he will certainly be keeping the munitions workers employed replacing those cruise missiles and of course the aircraft industry, spares if not whole aircraft. As I said the whole exercise is another stimulus package. If you have a recession, have a war, it is an old economic strategy. Very soon they will find an excuse for arms shipments to the rebels, just to level the playing field and there is going to be a whole army to reequip when this is over with shinny new tanks and APC and a new air defence system and a whole new air force, should be very stimulatory for the US with Libya as a new client state, lots of lovelly oil dollars

Newt is old news . I don't take his candidacy seriously . His best work has been writing alternate history fiction novels .

Newt is old news . I don't take his candidacy seriously . His best work has been writing alternate history fiction novels .

Has someone been commenting in similar vein over there, BO must be becoming more transparent these days, at this rate he will be the invisable man in no time

Well he will certainly be keeping the munitions workers employed replacing those cruise missiles and of course the aircraft industry, spares if not whole aircraft. As I said the whole exercise is another stimulus package. If you have a recession, have a war, it is an old economic strategy. Very soon they will find an excuse for arms shipments to the rebels, just to level the playing field and there is going to be a whole army to reequip when this is over with shinny new tanks and APC and a new air defence system and a whole new air force, should be very stimulatory for the US with Libya as a new client state, lots of lovelly oil dollars

A good war every so often gives a chance to use up the old munitions so we can get new improved ones... not to mention the practical experience of the military.

But there is already Iraq and Afghanistan that took care of that.

Libya is just a waste of effort... time and lives.

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implemented to keep people from leaving it. Even after multiple tours even Draftees in Vietnam weren't forced to endure.

They only had to do their one year, and past that it was by their choice.

Unless of course you were John Kerry... and you got to leave after only 4 months. (and yeah, there were circumstances that could get you out earlier even if you didn't have friends in the right places)

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implimented to keep people from leaving it. Wow, I didn't know about that until you mentioned it here: Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy)
I can't imagine why anyone would jon the armed forces knowing that they legally can be forced to stay much longer than they planned. That's a horrible policy.

Wow, I didn't know about that until you mentioned it here: Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy)
I can't imagine why anyone would jon the armed forces knowing that they legally can be forced to stay much longer than they planned. That's a horrible policy.

It gets implemented in times of emergency... not sure how often it is however, but I know people that had made it back to the USA... were hours from ending their tour in the USA (outprocessing Stateside)... and were sent BACK overseas after all their household goods were shipped to the States. During the first Gulf war. Got this from their own mouths when they got back to the Army base overseas. Several in fact. Want to talk about angry... if looks could kill.

It REALLY ticks off people that had served their time... had plans in place... to be told... too bad, get back to where your were, NOW! THey had shipped everything... sold their cars (most couldn't be sent back to the states) etc...

I didn't think you had been.

That's what my wife says but that's another subject. So it's not a war, it's a "kinetic military action (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/white-house-libya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action)."

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implimented to keep people from leaving it. Even after multiple tours even Draftees in Vietnam weren't forced to endure.

)
Not much different to the Libyian edict to fight or die them, seems their army isn't free to go home either. I think it shows that regimes become more authoritarian over time

That's what my wife says but that's another subject. So it's not a war, it's a "kinetic military action (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/white-house-libya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action)."

I think that's Obamaspeak for "I'm Bullsh*ting you again" Since the man seems incapible of actually saying what he means... and making Clintions " it depends on what the meaning of is, is." seem rational in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

I think that's ObamaspeakActually it's Bush-speak:


From a 2002 article...

Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War, introduces a new Washington retronym: "kinetic" warfare. From page 150:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going "kinetic," as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way? The public was patient, at least it seemed patient, but everyone wanted action. A full military action—air and boots—would be the essential demonstration of seriousness—to bin Laden, America, and the world.
.
.
.
Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic." (Why not "latent"? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether "the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare," Donald Rumsfeld answered, "Yes!" (Rumsfeld uses the words "kinetic" and "non-kinetic" all the time.)



"Kinetic warfare." - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2074367/)

Like Bill Clinton... "I never had sex with that woman" .



Yeah, let any married guy try that defense in divorce court and see how far it gets them.

Heck... how many wives would accept that excuse from their husbands?


BESIDES... Obama still hasn't properly notified Congress... or gotten approval.


His quick afterthought after I'm heading off to Brazil for another vacation... and OH by the way, I ordered Libya to be bombed in about 90 mintes from now. By bye... don't bother me if its not really important. I'm going to check out the thong wearing chicks at the beach in Rio. Michelle thinks I'm just working on my tan.

His quick afterthought after I'm heading off to Brazil for another vacation...Hello again, smoothy:

We're back here again... The president CAN do presidential stuff when he's away from the White House.. He brought his blackberry, and Air Force 1 has a radio or two. While you're looking up the job description of a state senator, look up the one for president...

excon

He could at least give us the courtesy of an address to the nation explaining his thoughts behind this intervention... especially if he has no plans to allow Congress to do their job(and I can find that in the Constitution).

He could at least give us the courtesy of an address Hello again, tom:

I've been unhappy too, about the way he manages the presidency... But, he has his style, and I'm willing to wait before I judge the results...

Do you watch Trump? The other day, Gary Busey was named project manager. His management style left a lot to be desired too, but in the final analysis, he won. I manage kind of funny too. When I owned a restaurant, I managed it from the dish washers station... Most people thought that was nuts... It wasn't.

excon

A minimal amount of transparancy should compel him to make his case to the people of the country when committing the country to military action. I do not recall an instant in post-Vietnam America where the President decided on military action and didn't address the nation at the time of action.
(no I don't watch Trump... honestly ,he has a very mixed record of success and often comes with his hand out to the government for assistance)

Hello again, smoothy:

We're back here again.... The president CAN do presidential stuff when he's away from the White House.. He brought his blackberry, and Air Force 1 has a radio or two. While you're looking up the job description of a state senator, look up the one for president....

excon

Hmmm... didn't you once complain that George Bush didn't freak out the classroom he was reading to children in when he first was told events on 9/11? Before anyone had a clue what really happened.

The problem is... he didn't take time to properly infom Congress... in advance.

An "Oh, by the way......" comment 90 minutes before the bombing commences doesn't qualitfy as properly informing congress. Regan did it, Both Biushes did it... Bill Clinton did it... But Obama is special and above it all apparently.

I'm waiting for Joe Biden to start impeachment proceedings against Obama. He did say he would spearhead impeachment proceedings against any president that went to war without getting congresses blessings first.

You would think committing an act of war would merit more than an afterthought... and might interrupt a vacation. But not with Obama... He's the messiah... the messiah does what he wants and the Messiah answers to no man.

Actually he is only required to give you his thoughts once a year and that is through Congress. If there was a little less PR there might be a little less concern

actually he is only required to give you his thoughts once a year and that is through Congress. If there was a little less PR there might be a little less concern

Every president in my memory addressed the public and /or Congress before engaging in warfare . If you can find the exception I'd like to know it.

What we agree on is the constitutional mandate for Congress to approve war. To date ,the most the President has done is inform select members of Congress .
Even in Kosovo ,there was a slow deliberate build up to US and NATO action ,and Clintoon addressed the nation the day the air campaign began.On March 23, 1999, the day before President Clinton approved
The use of force in Kosovo, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing
“air operations and missile strikes” in cooperation with NATO
against Yugoslavia. On March 24, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting
U.S. armed forces “engaged in military operations against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia".

Cool... the Canadians added an additional asset to the effort. Besides the crop duster they've added Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard to lead NATO forces against Daffy .
Way to go Harper!. see you in May after your election victory!!

After his Brazil visit, I can say the only reason we're in this “time-limited, scope-limited military action” for which he sought everyone's approval but Congress, is for the oil.

The other theory I came across this morning is that if he has our assets committed to Libya ,that he can says sorry...we are occupied elsewhere when the call comes to intervene in Syria.

A cynic might be inclined to argue that President Obama’s operation in Libya serves the purpose of preemptively tying up US reserves. It supplies a relatively target easy to beat up on — admittedly a bad guy who looks and plays the part — so that if and when the heavy lifting is required elsewhere the Commander in Chief can justly say, “I already gave at the office”.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/24/the-budget-of-force/

Hello:

What Obama understand, and you don't, is there's an upheaval in the Mid East not seen in over 100 years... He knows enough to see how it works out, rather than stick "our" finger in the wrong hole.

Bush stuck our fingers in the wrong hole called Iraq and you want Obama to do the same thing... Good thing he ain't going to.

excon

Which hole is better ? I agree that this is an upheaval not seen there since the fall of the Ottomans. The question is what is the US role ? Either we are going to influence the results or we are likely to get a situation where both the Gulf of Arabia and the Mediterranean become lakes of the jihadist ummah.

The question is what is the US role ? Either we are going to influence the results or we are likely to get a situation where both the Gulf of Arabia and the Mediterranean become lakes of the jihadist ummah.Hello again, tom:

If the protesters were burning American flags, or saying death to America, or burning Obama in effigy, I'd agree with you. But, they aren't. It looks, to ME, like a homegrown upwelling of a people throwing off the yoke of oppression... To you, it looks the beginning of our worst nightmare... I'm just not sure how our influence in the arena is going to benefit us.

excon

Assuming that the old guard dictatorship/kingdom models both fall (no guarantees there ),the question is what are they replaced with ? That is where our influence I believe will matter .It's still an open conflict between modernism and jihadist Islamism .
I see maybe one or two winner states emerging out of the ummah . Either the Iran model will be the template ,or if we are lucky,Turkey... the return of the Ottomans .

You talk of the President "understanding " ? What I see is him throwing some jabs as he disengages.

Hello again,

Well, Obama's war would have worked out, if war can be worked out. But, it can't. The rebels are in retreat. If we went in to save them from being slaughtered, what's our next move? Arm them? Send our guy's in? Let 'em be slaughtered?

This has the makings of another LONG Mideast war that we had NO business getting into.

excon

Hello again,

Ach... No wonder Obamas war can't be worked out. It's NOT a war, after all. According to Sarah Palin, it's a squirmish. (http://www.celebstoner.com/201103306418/news/celebstoner-news/sarah-palin-is-squirmish-about-libya.html)

excon

Why isn't President Obama calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down ?

I think that Obama is now asking for that... but it's not the issue.

Why didn't we do something when so many in Uganda were killed years ago?

The bottom line is that we cannot police the world. Bad stuff happens in many countries. We Americans cannot be the Police of the world.

I think that Obama is now asking for that... but it's not the issue.

Why didn't we do something when so many in Uganda were killed years ago?



Had he acted at the time of this posting I believe much of this would've been avoided .
I still think there is a good chance that Daffy will go into exile .

I think the thing that is preventing it is his memory of Charles Taylor making an exile deal... the world renaged and now he sits in a jail in the Hague .

No one is asking we police the world. I have been clear (forget which response on this or other similar ops) that my bottom line is we should go against dictators who have also sponsored terrorism or directly attacked us. Daffy is guilty of both.

Hello again,

Well, Obama's war would have worked out, if war can be worked out. But, it can't. The rebels are in retreat. If we went in to save them from being slaughtered, what's our next move? Arm them? Send our guy's in? Let 'em be slaughtered?

This has the makings of another LONG Mideast war that we had NO business getting into.

excon

I am hearing that the US used ground clearing A-10s in the 'no fly zone' .
My original op was for protection of demonstrators . This goes far beyond what I called for ,and the UN mandate (which now appears to be the final arbiter for US military deployment).
I'm hearing the Russians and other nations that did not vote for the no -fly zone ,but did not veto it ,did so because there was an assurance that the US would not attack ground forces combatting the rebels ,and would stick to a narrow mandate of civilian protection.

Man, those Democrats are sounding an awful lot like those neocons.

Obama Authorizes Secret Help for Libya Rebels (http://mobile.cnbc.com/us_news/42352178)


President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Dianne Feinstein says we have 3 options - go in and arrest him, move him to another country or, "meeting the same fate that, that Saddam Hussein met." "I don't know how you solve this problem with a recalcitrant leader who isn't going to quit at this point," she said.

OC-3emjNGf0

When is Rep. Lynn "Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy" Woolsey going to rally her Code Pinksters to fire up the anti-war masses?

In that article,

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

"I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."

They are already there on the ground. You don't go into a NO-FLY into an area until you have enough intelligence to give specific targeting directions. Otherwise you are going to have to blow up a lot of stuff that doesn't need blown up in the process of getting to the stuff you NEED to blow up.

But then yet again... the left publicises something that really needed to remain a secret until the operations are over.

But a publicity stunt apparently means more than the lives of operatives still on the ground to this administration.

I'm glad I'M not one of those operatives right now. Not that I'd have any chance of blending in, in the first place.

ISuch findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

Yeah well... (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/cia_operatives_have_been_helpi.html)


The CIA has placed covert operatives on the ground in Libya to gather intelligence for air strikes and reach out to rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi's loyalists. Yesterday Reuters reported that President Obama had signed a secret order called a "finding" — the first step in authorizing a clandestine CIA mission. But officials now say it's been underway for weeks. When Obama first addressed the country about enforcing the U.N. resolution a little under two weeks ago, one of the parameters for U.S. involvement was no ground troops. Even as the coalition moved under NATO's leadership, Obama has insisted that the U.S. military will not deploy ground troops to Libya. Nonetheless, small groups of CIA operatives have been communicating and vetting rebels for weeks, "as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military," officials told the New York Times. The apparently not-so-secret finding was signed earlier this month.

Now that we've cleared that up, which of Feinstein's solutions do you favor?

But officials now say it's been underway for weeks.

Of course . Someone had to be on the ground to direct the air campaign.

I figured it out . The President says there will be no 'boots on the ground.' He sent in the CIA wearing sandals .

"Sneakers, they're wearing sneakers (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hD74Y4ZzGR4qqIoOWmAGNv3ZmH9g?docId=6425330), not boots," said John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think-tank . "That's how they're clandestine."

Hello wingers:

I hear you complaining, but me theenks it's only because its OBAMA doing it. You wanted him to go in, now you don't like what going in involves... Sounds like Iraq all over again.

excon

What's good for the goose...

I just know if this were Bush all hell would be breaking loose from the left. It is they who are the hypocrites because it's Obama.

It is they who are the hypocrites because it's Obama.Hello again, Steve:

There's SOME of them, of course... But the lefty YOU'RE dealing with is even handed, brilliant and good looking to boot.

excon

Any bets on who is the first NATO force to high-tail it out of there when things get really heated up?

Hello K:

I don't know. The French? The Arab League?? What's important, is who's going to be LEFT to do the dirty work, and that, my friend, is going to be US.

excon

PS> (edited) Uhhh, the Arab League ain't in NATO - but you get my meaning..

Hello K:

I dunno. The French? The Arab League??? What's important, is who's going to be LEFT to do the dirty work, and that, my friend, is gonna be US.

excon

PS> (edited) Uhhh, the Arab League ain't in NATO - but you get my meaning..

Ding,ding,ding, winner,winner,chicken dinner!

Ex, I can't comment on how good looking you are, but you're pretty even handed.

What I want to know is, how do I start that many people with only 3 bench slots?

I have yet to be critical of the decision to enforce a no-fly zone.
I'm not even critical of CIA being on the ground . They should be .
That is the nature of precision bombing .

I hope his secret order includes orders to Get Daffy... maybe a rendition if possible. I also think that the Senate and House need to make regime change America's official policy toward Libya... and the sooner the better .

I think he bungled it out of the gate and doesn't really understand why he made this call. (he thinks he does ,but he really doesn't. All he really understands is working the urban streets agitating )

1.He went in too late (by 3 weeks)
2. He did not make his case to Congress ;he made a muddled incoherent case to the American people 2 weeks in to our participation
3. He only felt justified in committing forces when other nations and international institutions gave him the OK.
4. He really has no idea what he wants to accomplish . The problem is that he is not like GW Bush who had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and put it on the table for all to see.

Hello again, Steve:

You have enough players to man every position, and the bench is who's left over.

About, Libya, though. We should NOT have gone in. Smoothy and I agree. KBC too.

excon

He really has no idea what he wants to accomplish . The problem is that he is not like GW Bush who had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and put it on the table for all to see.Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree about Obama.. I don't even disagree about Bush... They were both WRONG about their wars. It took Obama 31 days to be wrong. It took Bush over a year and much study to be wrong.

Who's worse? Who cares?

excon

I know what the bench is goofy... I'm just a football guy. But am I starting 9 pitchers?

On Libya, I totally agree with tom.

I know what the bench is goofy...I'm just a football guy. But am I starting 9 pitchers?Hello again, Steve:

Nahh, you rotate 'em.. I don't know if they're physically assigned to the bench or the bull pen. Going to have to wait till Tuesday, when Felix Hernandez throws a no hitter, and he's on MY team.

excon

Uh, the roster settings show 9 starting pitchers. In fantasy football that would be like 9 starting QB's.

As I recall there is a max amount of innings you can use your pitchers for during the season.
You can go to
Fantasy Baseball Probable Pitchers : Fantasy News (http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/probable-pitchers/al/20110401)
To find out which starters to put in your lineup daily .

You fill in the rest of the pitching slots with relievers.

All I know is it says starting pitchers, 9, which to me means I need 9 pitchers plus backups. What am I missing?

Hello again, Steve:

Well, you don't start 5 outfielders either, so I can't tell you what's going on.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, you don't start 5 outfielders either, so I can't tell you what's going on.

excon

You're the man, you have to make the settings work, brother.

Hello again, Steve

What I can tell you is this. You have 22 starters, but when you fill in your roster, only 9 players will actually "start". It'll become obvious when we start playing...

SAVES do count, so some of your "starting" pitchers have to be relievers...

excon

Here is the rules. Just checked... the league is set for MAX 200 games started . But you need some relievers on your roster also because 'saves' counts.


PITCHERS
ESPN Fantasy Baseball provides nine pitcher slots. You may use any combination of Starters and Relievers. However, keep in mind that there are limits for games started by your Active Starters as a whole. For more information on Pitching Limits, click here.

NOTE: The utility slot may NOT be filled with a pitcher.


Total Roster Size: 25+1 (13 Batters, 9 Pitchers, 3 Bench, +1 DL)

Batters (13): C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, OF, OF, OF, OF, 2B/SS, 1B/3B, UTIL

Pitchers (9): P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P

Bench (3): BE, BE, BE

Disabled List (1): DL

All right, I'll figure it out. Just trying to get a draft strategy since I won't be joining you.

Hello again, Steve:

Pick Cy Young award winners, closers and batters. Defensive stats don't count. Since there's only a few teams, there'll be PLENTY of good players that'll be available AFTER the draft. You take 'em off waivers.

excon

I love the waiver wires.

I just checked my stats from the last year's league .

You can have pitchers or position players on your bench.

Some strategery . When I came close to Max wins ,I added relievers who could pad some of the other pitching stats .

Do they play baseball in Libya?

Hello clete:

Do you have a stick up your a$$?

excon

Hello clete:

Do you have a stick up your a$$?

excon

No Ex but you sure have one up yours. I just wonder why the hell we are discusssing baseball when people are dying.

So would you arm the libyian rebels or would you let them get slaughtered?

It's a question BO must wrestle with every day lately and his response, we will take our ball and go sit in the bleechers. It must be hard to conduct a covert war when you have your allies looking over your shoulder

So would you arm the libyian rebels

Yeah I'd give them a 33 oz Louisville Slugger and say It's a beautiful day for a ballgame... Let's play two! (Ernie Banks)

yeah I'd give them a 33 oz Louisville Slugger and say It's a beautiful day for a ballgame... Let's play two! (Ernie Banks)

Well that might be fine if they knew what you are talking about and you did the same for daffy's mob, but the whole thing is a little one sided at the moment, aside from the rebels claiming victories that look more like traps

Daffy is losing some high profile defectors. If his inner circle crumbles we'll see regime change.

No Tom don't you know daffy doesn't need anyone, the people love him and will die for him and while we focus on what this idiot is doing thousands die elsewhere

I find it both sick and sad that Daffy is now pleading with BO to stop the war. This fellow has truly lost perspective. He has gone from needing no one to needing Obama

Obama and Daffy are birds of a feather.

Obama and Daffy are birds of a feather.Hello again, smoothy:

You have to admit, Obama has a nicer tent.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You have to admit, Obama has a nicer tent.

exconYeah... thats a fact I won't argue.

Does daffy have ongoing renovations. I heard he hadn't even fixed up the hole Reagan made. Is it true BO now receives visitors at the back door