[NeedKarma]

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.

[Curlyben]

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 ;)

[NeedKarma]

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.

[tomder55]

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 !"

[NeedKarma]

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!

[excon]

lol Peace through Strength Obama Style

Hello 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

[tomder55]

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.

[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 ?

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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 .

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

[tomder55]

Addressed this before .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-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]

[paraclete]

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

The French would whup Aussie in a fight.

[paraclete]

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

[smoothy]

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

excon

Have 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".