No, they didn't. These bombings are completely unauthorized. We should not stand for this.

It's sad to see some of you confirming what I feared was true: you don't actually care about human life, you just care about politics. Some of the same people that were decrying Bush's war crimes are now lining up behind Obama. It's truly pathetic.

3/21/2011 12:07:02 PM

Well, for what it's worth, here's an article from a friend of a friend that some of you might appreciate.

Quote :

"The U.S. prepared to a launch a missile attack on Libyan air defenses, but American ships and aircraft stationed in and around the Mediterranean Sea did not participate in initial French air missions Saturday, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the unfolding intervention. One official said the U.S. intends to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses. An attack against those defenses with Navy sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles was planned for later Saturday, one official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations. ~Houston Chronicle (AP) If all goes as planned, this is how the U.S. will enter yet another arbitrary, unnecessary, unjust, and unconstitutional war. This war breaks every rule of the Powell Doctrine. This is a war fought neither as a last resort, nor is the U.S. prepared to use overwhelming force. Based on the mismatch between what the U.S. and our allies are authorized to do and what we have set out to do, mission creep is as inevitable as it is undesirable. Lexington notes that there has been no meaningful public debate prior to the U.S. and allied commitment to intervene in Libya: But there is no escaping the fact that this new entanglement was decided upon behind closed doors at the UN and with very little public debate here in the United States. None of this will matter if the end comes quickly. But if things go wrong and America is drawn deeper in, the domestic consequences for the president could be far-reaching. Unfortunately, there is very little accountability from the public for terrible foreign policy decisions. This may be one reason why all administrations can make as many bad decisions as they do without suffering immediate political backlash, and why there is no political incentive for showing restraint in the exercise of American power. One reason for this is that U.S. foreign policy is remarkably independent of public opinion. There are overwhelming majorities that not only don’t support U.S. military action in Libya, but don’t believe that the U.S. has any responsibility to respond to what happens in Libya, but this makes no difference to the people setting policy. Another reason for this is timing. Foreign policy blunders and disasters don’t always appear so to the majority of the public right away. It takes considerable time for the full consequences of horrible policy decisions to be realized, and by then the people responsible for making those decisions may already be out of office. Intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was a horrible decision, and it has had unfortunate consequences for Kosovo and other nations beyond the Balkans, but the people responsible were on their way out the door, and most of these consequences didn’t happen until years later. It took three years, thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of American wounded, and mass slaughter taking place in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities before the majority of the public was moved to punish the party of the President responsible for the Iraq debacle, and to this day there is still no evidence that the party understands why it actually lost. Other times, horrible foreign policy decisions may greatly harm other nations, but they may have only a minimal, temporary effect on the U.S., in which case the public shrugs off the mistake, forgets about it, and never even notices it. While recognizing Kosovo’s independence and pledging eventual Georgian membership in NATO set the stage for the tensions that erupted in August 2008 with Georgia’s escalation, hardly anyone in the U.S. knew or cared that administration decisions had contributed to that disaster, and because it was mainly a disaster for Georgia and South Ossetia there was no public reaction. Likewise, the Kosovo war itself was disastrous for Serbia, and the political aftermath has proved to be very bad for the inhabitants of Kosovo, but even though the public was divided over Kosovo, and even though Congress only debated it after it had been going on for weeks, it had no major effect on Clinton’s popularity or the election prospects of his Vice President. The greatest political danger to Obama doesn’t come from what happens in Libya, but from the perception that he is unduly concerned with foreign affairs. Even Presidents widely considered to be successful in their foreign policy efforts don’t enjoy sustained political benefits from that at home. As long as the economic recovery remains slow, Obama’s attention to foreign affairs, whether it is unavoidable or not, may start to be seen as coming at the expense of focusing on domestic concerns. Unfortunately, Obama will probably not be punished politically for the terrible decision to intervene in Libya. For that to happen, the U.S. and our allies would have to make such a hash of things that they end up presiding over a completely failed mission, and no one in the U.S. and allied countries wants to see this happen."

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/19/another-unconstitutional-war-begins/

i don't tend to agree with paleocons on "cultural" issues at all (there's nothing noble about holding to bad old traditions), but they're usually spot-on with regards to our military aggression.

I've also mentioned before on here I'd be willing to vote for an anti-war conservative as long as they aren't set on returning us to the old aristocratic hard currency of the 19th century. I was always a William Jennings Bryan populist.

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 1:10 PM. Reason : x]

3/21/2011 1:07:08 PM

Also, not all Dems back Obama/Clinton-style intervention:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143033

And not all urging caution are new-agey Kucinich types:

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/03-02-2011-02.cfm
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/03-17-2011-02.cfm

3/21/2011 1:16:17 PM

A week ago, people on the right were chiding Obama for being indecisive while the UN was going through the motions. Now people are on his nuts for actually taking action? in a way that limits US involvement? Fuck that. We know we're stretched thin. The people in the military know we're stretched thin. And Obama knows we're stretched thin because he's a fairly intelligent guy, contrary to popular belief. He's not going to get us involved in some ongoing war for 8 years that bleeds us dry. The guy before him took care of that. France and Italy and Spain are taking the lead on this and if they fuck up then we can hold it over their heads for 10 years. The Arab world wanted this to happen. It's got wide-ranging international support.

200 Tomahawks at $600,000 a pop? So like $120,000,000? How much money did Qaddafi drain out of the US through higher oil prices the past month and a half? Probably a fuckton more than that. Some of you are non-interventionist and some of you are just dumbfucks. Get off Obama's nuts.

3/21/2011 1:24:23 PM

Quote :

"How much money did Qaddafi drain out of the US through higher oil prices the past month and a half"

Seriously?

I was actually supportive of him keeping us out of Libya. The right was longing for war. Im happy to see SOME on the left being critical of the decision. What is really the end game? He has said we wont send troops, I hope he was serious.

3/21/2011 1:38:35 PM

I highly doubt we will. Why would we need to? As soon as the rebels take back their ground, Gaddafi gets killed or steps down, or his troops get too demoralized from getting pounded by magical explosions then the war is over. If, for some reason, ground troops do get sent in they will almost definitely be NATO forces and not US.

I'm not keen on the idea of the US going to war over every little thing either. I feel like I'm generally a pretty anti-war person. But the world was basically pleading us to do this, so why not score some points internationally with few casualties, aid the rebels in taking their country back and getting an enemy of the world out of power?

3/21/2011 1:46:24 PM

^sounds a lot like Iraq. (the optimisim part) I hope you are correct.

I still dont see how this is justifiable. Our nation or interests were not threatened.

3/21/2011 1:52:00 PM

It's a No-Fly Zone, ordered by the UN and enforced by several nations in equal capacity. This isn't the invasion of Iraq.

3/21/2011 3:00:35 PM

you're right, it's more similar to 1998 iraq (operation desert fox) and the no fly zones that preceeded todays iraq. remember when we were simply funding opposition groups in iraq to help liberate them? ah, good times they were.

3/21/2011 3:25:24 PM

Do we even know who these guys are that we are intervening on behalf of? We don't exactly have a good track record of picking winners that aren't as bad if not worse than the current regime (do I really have to lay out our foreign policy since WWII?) without being on the ground.

3/21/2011 3:44:48 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/dennis-kucinich-obama-impeachment_n_838502.html

Yeah, the comments on this article...some "liberals" are really dumb.

More from Dan:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/21/an-arbitrary-accidental-intervention/

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM. Reason : x]

3/21/2011 4:13:48 PM

We like to take the side of the guerrilla rebels, give them weapons, and then play dumb when the same weapons are used against us years later.

^lol at some of those comments. I like this one:

Quote :

"Obama will not be impeached for this (though he should be), as slaughteri­ng innocents to protect the interests of US investors is what we elect Presidents to do in the first place."

And this:

Quote :

"Shame on Obama - another war on the Arab world. He's escalated Afghanista­n, provoked Pakistan and now this. I campaigned for Obama and feel so sad and done. This system is broken, corrupt and over. Time for something else. It's be interestin­g to see what comes."

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2011 5:02:27 PM

Funny....Bush gets slaughtered for getting Congressional approval for the war in Iraq without UN approval, and Obama gets a pat on the back for attacking Gaddafi without consenting Congress with UN approval.

3/21/2011 7:15:42 PM

but no one is claiming he has lied to get us here, so there is the difference.

3/21/2011 7:20:17 PM

Quote :

"We like to take the side of the guerrilla rebels, give them weapons, and then play dumb when the same weapons are used against us years later."

In fairness, we're not really doing that right now, it would be an valid criticism if we do, but it's a bit premature right now.

3/21/2011 7:48:18 PM

so, would this be a "Clone of the Attack" or a "Clone of the Clone of the Attack"?

3/21/2011 8:03:39 PM

Quote :

"Funny....Bush gets slaughtered for getting Congressional approval for the war in Iraq without UN approval, and Obama gets a pat on the back for attacking Gaddafi without consenting Congress with UN approval."

So who here is saying that?

The American people seem to be pretty divided on this supposed "slam dunk" so far.

Quote :

"Finally stepping up to the plate in Libya jesus he got the sand out of his vagina. Who would have ever thought Hussein Obama would lead an attack against a Muslim leader. Anyway, this in all honesty may be the first thing Obama has done his entire presidency that I agree with. Although most of his policies have been clearly incorrect they weren't grey area like this one so there hasn't been much to choose from. For the record I was anti-Iraq but pro-Afghanistan. And actually I got my Ron Paul bumper sticker already but I havent put it on my car yet because I hate going outside with all the pollen."

Hahahahaha, what the fuck? Pro-war, pro-Ron Paul (never mind that 99% of people first learned about him due to his antiwar stance), believing that the Heat would win a record number of games this year and believing that Sidney Lowe would make us a contender this year. What have you ever shown any sense of understanding on?

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 9:53 PM. Reason : x]

3/21/2011 9:49:54 PM

I think this war is a DEFINITELY a grey area and I understand the reason some people are 100% against it.

If you base it on Obama's campaign it seems like he should be 100% against it.


However, I think there is true justification for the idea that if the West won't support these rebels then Al-Queda and muslim radicalists will just gain more support.

My belief is overthrow this asshole and then if the new regime takes a similar stance then kick them in the donkey nuts too.

America should not stand behind oppressive leaders, period.



Don't get me wrong. Obama is the worst of the worst when it comes to being President. But in spite of this I think he's right this time.

3/21/2011 10:00:37 PM

^^ and i never believed the heat would win a record amount of games. i predicted against it in fact. check the facts.

i thought the bball team would achieve this year but it didnt happen. i warned against the freshmen being too cocky though remember and i said leslie and harrow werent ready for college bball, remember?

and ive been correct almost everytime ive stepped in the soap box. Check out the dollar, inflation, us deficit, and every other evil thing the govt has done to us playboy.


And i dont have to be 100% in line with every viewpoint of every person i support. Im not pro-war at all. Im mostly anti-war. I think we are right to fight Libya though. Honestly we're at that breaking point where I basically agree with Donald Trump that we should take Iraq's oil because we've spent so much caressing their ballsacs and we need to recoup the losses. If we leave Iran just steals it all, so I think D.Trump is right. Take the fucking oil and tell them to suck our hairy balls.

I support Ron Paul because he stands for fiscal sanity. Whether he's pro or anti war i still support him as I cant guarantee Im correct on the war, but i CAN guarantee Obama is wrong on the budget, economy, dollar, healthcare, etc.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 12:23 AM. Reason : a]

3/22/2011 12:19:59 AM

Quote :

"America should not stand behind oppressive leaders, period."

When are we going to China/Russia/Venezuela? When are we going to remove Obama from office for the economic oppression that is Obamacare?

You have to define oppression.

3/22/2011 10:02:06 AM

"We are in Libya because of oil. It all goes back to the five million barrels of oil we import from OPEC on a daily basis."

-- Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass
March 22, 2011

3/22/2011 10:21:52 AM

Quote :

"ssjamind All American 29328 Posts im glad he's letting the Frenchies, Italians, and whomever else in Europe lead the military action on this."

i laughed when i saw that knee jerk comment the first day of the attacks. i was actually waiting for people like this to come out of the woodwork who honestly thought we weren't involved. this is hilarious.




edit:

Quote :

"IMStoned420 DUDE 12759 Posts user info edit post He's done really well. Let the fearless Frenchies take the charge on Libya and feel important for once. I'll gladly watch as we lob unstoppable Tomahawks from 300 miles off-shore."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/f15-fighter-crash-libya

Maybe a US F15E fighter crashing over Libya should put these super far left 'fantasy land' theories to bed?


[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : another]

3/22/2011 10:26:20 AM

Lulz

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909

Quote :

"Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009. Zhirinovsky said the attacks were "another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States," and that the attacks demonstrated a "colonial policy" with "one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime." He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result. Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: "How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination." Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006. He is amongst a number of left-leaning Latin American leaders who have denounced the attacks against Libya. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Cristina Ferdinez of Argentina have all criticised western media coverage of the Libyan crisis. Morales and Chavez repeated calls for peace talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." The Committee praised the "change in the international climate" affected by Obama's presidency. In his Nobel Lecture, he discussed the "hard truth" of the inevitability of war, saying: "There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." A message has been widely retweeted on Twitter today: "Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined." "

3/22/2011 12:01:49 PM

It's funny sad that the rest of the world is now realizing what conservatives knew about President Obama before he was elected.

3/22/2011 4:42:33 PM

The rest of the world hasn't figured out that he's a Muslim yet.

3/22/2011 4:43:41 PM

Quote :

"It's funny sad that the rest of the world is now realizing what conservatives knew about President Obama before he was elected."

As if conservatives were the only ones against Obama receiving the Nobel.

3/22/2011 4:48:12 PM

Conservatives knew Obama was a warhawk before everyone else did...?

3/22/2011 11:24:48 PM

ThePeter, I think you missed a section needing bolding

Quote :

"Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006."

3/22/2011 11:35:04 PM

god obama's presidency has been the biggest mess ever.

This is what you get when you elect a follower instead of a leader.

Why doesn't he just resign? He can't do anything right. I love the fact he can't even issue a statement explaining our involvement he's got the goddam attorney general of all people as the spokesman.

And LOL at the people talking about the money we're spending. This is the same asshole that stole $800 billion from the treasury when the entire country opposed it. Who gives a fuck about a few million? That's like letting someone rob your house and then freaking out that the vending machine took your quarters.


Obama doesn't even answer to America. He takes his marching orders from the "international community". This is the same liberal pussy attitude that made John Kerry unelectable.

Where is Obama going to turn next? Who can possibly back this guy anymore?

Our Muslim Son is done. And taking the USA down with him.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 1:19 AM. Reason : a]

3/23/2011 1:18:36 AM

3/23/2011 1:20:24 AM

^ i really hope you arent addressing me. Its really fucking annoying when liberal hippies do stuff like post caricatures because they arent smart enough to understand the world.

3/23/2011 2:04:20 AM

3/23/2011 8:24:44 AM

Quote :

"He has said we wont send troops, I hope he was serious. "

Guess he wasnt.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

I hope this isnt correct

3/23/2011 9:35:51 AM

well, what are you calling "troops?" Ground forces? Remember that an MEU, IIRC, contains many elements, including pilots. It ould make perfect sense if pilots were being deployed in Libya, given that we are enforcing a No Fly Zone.

3/23/2011 5:00:56 PM

^good point. But if you look at the numbers(2200), it makes me nervous. I dont imagine that is all pilots and support for the pilots. I do hope that is all it is.

3/23/2011 8:52:59 PM

Quote :

"But if you look at the numbers(2200), it makes me nervous."

...

Quote :

"About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will take part in support operations based aboard USS Kearsarge at sea. "

...

Quote :

"USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) Troops: 1,893 Marines Complement: 104 Officers, 1,004 Sailors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3)

Derpa derp.

Quote :

"I do hope that is all it is."

Yeah, right.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2011 9:03:49 PM

^ 10/10 on the placement of the "Derpa derp"

3/23/2011 11:28:09 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, right"

hahah, so i want troops in libya now?

3/24/2011 1:50:22 PM

Special Forces are probably already there.

3/24/2011 5:44:57 PM

kinda funny

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/25/difference_between_libya_and_iraq_explained.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8e04c275f60281%2C0

3/26/2011 11:52:54 AM

4/3/2011 4:48:58 PM

Europeans finally stepping up to the plate:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/04/un-helicopter-opens-fire-at-gbagbos-ivory-coast-forces/

4/4/2011 6:34:00 PM

what credibility?

4/4/2011 6:39:59 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-4-2011/victory-lapse---obama-transparency-award

Hilariously sad.

4/6/2011 8:11:02 AM

PEACE OUT SUKKAS

4/6/2011 5:14:56 PM

Colorado mom shocked to hear Obama quote her e-mail
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-09-obama-email_N.htm

Wow, I always thought these stories he told were complete bullshit… it’s cool to see that they don’t outright fabricate them.

4/9/2011 8:29:29 PM

4/10/2011 11:13:28 AM

No post about his campaign "policy" speech? From what I've read, he burned the bridges for bipartisanship and pissed on the ashes. Some leader this asshole is.

4/14/2011 11:50:03 PM

Yeah, he burned bridges when he mentioned that there were to factors to the deficit reduction equation - spending, and revenue. Unheard of! ... Shut your mouth! ... Republicans were trying so hard to make it look like a single factor equation. "Everything was on the table", except talk of taxes.

4/15/2011 8:43:40 AM

and military spending.

4/15/2011 3:06:12 PM