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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

---

Like the guy in Wisconsin?

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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

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" !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

....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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.