[BigdaddyQH]

Obama is going to do what he does best. He will "half ass" it in Libya. He wants Gadaffi to go, but he will not force him to go. He says that he will not use ground forces, which ofcourse is a blatent lie. If anyone knows anything in here about the missles being used against Libya, they would know that it takes people ON THE GROUND to guide those missles to their targets. I know this for a fact. I have a grandson in Special Forces that does exactly that. Obama is stupid enough to think that we can bomb Libya, and that action alone will get Gadaffi to stop murdering his people. He wants Gadaffi out, but his Military Advisors have been ordered not to target Gadaffi. They even admit that it is quite possible that Gadaffi will come out of this as the leader of Libya. Obama will allow the Air Force to destroy Libyan troops and tanks that target civilians, but will not allow the Air Force to help the Rebels. This is the policy of a complete and total moron. Obama fits that description perfectly. President "Half Ass". That is what he be most remembered for.

[FourLengthsClear]

Oh, right, big bad Fox News "In April 1991 Iraq provided its first of what would be several declarations of its chemical weapons programs. [56] Subsequent declarations submitted by Iraq in June 1992 , March 1995, June 1996 came only after pressure from UNSCOM. [56] In February 1998 , UNSCOM unanimously determined that after seven years of attempts to establish the extent of Iraq’s chemical weapons programs, that Iraq had still not given the Commission sufficient information for them to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required by the UNSC resolutions concerning chemical weapons" Good read, if you're interested... the "Between Persian Gulf Wars" section http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_...ss_destruction If Saddam was giving inspectors the run-around about his weapons stockpiles and research for 7 years with inspectors in the country, doesn't it stand to reason that when they left for 4 years, he wouldn't really destroy the weapons like he claimed? He claimed he was clean for 7 years, until weapons/chemicals/research was discovered. Then he would lie and say that's all he had, until more was found, etc etc etc... Does he sound like a trustworthy guy?

You are missing the point. Saddam Hussein was a tyrrant who had used chemical weapons against his own citizens in the past and, of course, was not trustworthy. He had flouted UN resulutions and have not fully complied with the most recent ones concerning weapons inspections. None of that is in dispute.

However. if I was looking objectively at a situation where I was going to order hundreds of thousands of my countries' servicemen into what was always going to be a hostile envirionment, I would want to know that there was really a threat. From the enquiries that were held in the US and the UK, it is beyond doubt that evidence suggested that there were WMDs was hyped up and contrary evidence was buried/ignored.

Had there been a widespread belief that Iraq was really a threat the US and UK could have walked into the UN and got much more widespread suppport and would have faced much less resistance from Iraqi insurgents and every Jihadist from Khartoum to Kandahar would not have made there way there to help them.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Obama has no choice but to be a part of this coalition. They back us, we back them. This is England and France forcing the issue on the attacks. England and France both get most of their oil from Libya and no one brings this point up. England went as far to turn over the "Lockerbie Bomber" in exchange for oil contracts.

[rsnnh12]

You are missing the point. Saddam Hussein was a tyrrant who had used chemical weapons against his own citizens in the past and, of course, was not trustworthy. He had flouted UN resulutions and have not fully complied with the most recent ones concerning weapons inspections. None of that is in dispute.

However. if I was looking objectively at a situation where I was going to order hundreds of thousands of my countries' servicemen into what was always going to be a hostile envirionment, I would want to know that there was really a threat. From the enquiries that were held in the US and the UK, it is beyond doubt that evidence suggested that there were WMDs was hyped up and contrary evidence was buried/ignored.

Had there been a widespread belief that Iraq was really a threat the US and UK could have walked into the UN and got much more widespread suppport and would have faced much less resistance from Iraqi insurgents and every Jihadist from Khartoum to Kandahar would not have made there way there to help them.

Oil for Food Scandal
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...food_12-3.html

Some of the UN Security Council representatives were benefitting from Saddam staying in power... they weren't going to approve military action, despite the previously violated resolutions calling for it.

As for intel being manipulated/hidden, that wasn't known at the time, right? Its only recently come out that evidence was exagerrated, and that should have no bearing on critiquing the decisions made. Everyone thought the intel was legit (obviously excluding the people who provided it)

[RonPaul2008]

Anyone who believed Obama is a pacifist while he was campaigning for President was ill informed and naive.
The warmonger promised to ramp up the war in Afghanistan during his campaign for President.

[itchypickle]

Ongoing Afghanistan operations, drones dropping bombs in Pakistan....used out drones in Yemen and the failed attempt to cover that up...now he attacks Libya....all the while keeping Gitmo open and ready for more prisoners......

AND HE GOT THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

[19th Hole]

Anyone who believed Obama is a pacifist while he was campaigning for President was ill informed and naive.
The warmonger promised to ramp up the war in Afghanistan during his campaign for President.

Let me get this straight....
You actually believe that someone
could possibly believe that a person
campaigning to lead the free would
would actually be mistaken for
a pacifist?? You should do
stand-up comedy.
Thanks for the gut buster.
By the way....good luck with that Ron Paul thing.

[pavyracer]

This is not really war. Have the Libyans fired a shot back at the coalition yet? They get hit from the air or from hundreds of miles away with missiles. Obama will not sent troops on the ground. This is like the Serbia bombing of the 90's where prolonged bombing forced the Serbs to retreat from Kossovo. Ghaddafi has less than 75,000 troops in his forces. He is not going to fight the coalition like he says.

[itchypickle]

This is not really war. Have the Libyans fired a shot back at the coalition yet? They get hit from the air or from hundreds of miles away with missiles. Obama will not sent troops on the ground. This is like the Serbia bombing of the 90's where prolonged bombing forced the Serbs to retreat from Kossovo. Ghaddafi has less than 75,000 troops in his forces. He is not going to fight the coalition like he says.

Define 'ground troops' please. Because it's a fact that most of the targets being struck from the air this week...vehicles,tanks, and especially the hits called off due to human shields in and around buildings...are linked up to the planes by forward observers from the Air Force ON THE GROUND as well as Army ODAs ON THE GROUND....so already he's wrong on this one.
Furthermore, if no ground troops are used...the dictator stays....period. (unless a strike is made on his location and we've already been told that's not gonna happen because 'this is a no fly zone mission only').

This entire endeavor will blow up in a few weeks to a month...from a military standpoint...it's totally messed up already.

[Hotdiggity11]

Dark Horse,

This is the first post of yours with which I violently disagreed.

War Powers Act. President can control the military for 60 days awhile without congressional approval, as long as he tells them about it (which he did).

Was this an "attack"? Bush attacked Iraq. He send troops in, destroyed their military, occupied their capital, and took over the country.

The US has treaties (including military obligations) with other UN members. The US is a member of Nato, and has military treaties with Nato members. Italy is demanding that Nato head this whole thing (which makes sense).

Obama has been very cautious in this Libyan affair. I disagree with a lot he has done, but he has handled the Libyan civil war properly.

Obama doesn't need the War Powers Act anyways, this use of the military comes from our treaty with the UN as a member. Treaties are part of the Supreme Law of The Land thus applicable.

[muldoon]

Remember when he said he would have all the troops out of the middle east within 6 months of his term? I can't believe some of you idiots actually voted for this lying pri

6 months? Either provide a real link to him saying 6 months, or admit you just made that BS quote up.

[muldoon]

If Obama ignores Libya, he's got an army of AM radio and FoxNews mouth breathers whining that he's a pus$y.

If he attacks Libya (interesting how the coalition of countries involved include many who knew Iraq was trumped up BS and refused to join) suddenly all the yellow car magnet "support the troops no matter what" people turn into the anti-war brigade.

[THE PROFIT]

why hasnt the CIA just knocked Quaddafi off yet???

[itchypickle]

why hasnt the CIA just knocked Quaddafi off yet???

They are too busy waiting on Pelosi to recover from her trip and hospital stay....wanna make damn sure she remembers being briefed on THIS one since she 'forgot' the other inclusions

[muldoon]

why hasnt the CIA just knocked Quaddafi off yet???

Same reason why they didn't just "knock off" Saddam...or Kim Jong

[pavyracer]

The same people who say Obama is a warmonger now were saying 2 weeks ago he was indecisive and afraid to go to war. Go figure.

[muldoon]

The same people who say Obama is a warmonger now were saying 2 weeks ago he was indecisive and afraid to go to war. Go figure.

If he walked on water, they'd complain that he's a shitty swimmer.

[CanuckG]

Obama can't win or lose. He won't be president in 2012.

[philswin]

So if George Bush took the same actions when he was President as Obama is taking now there would be no complaining or criticizing from the left? Where have all the anti-war activists gone???

[muldoon]

So if George Bush took the same actions when he was President as Obama is taking now there would be no complaining or criticizing from the left? Where have all the anti-war activists gone???

Even most anti war people supported Bush re: Afghanistan. It was obvious to everyone the Taliban harbored the guys who planned 911.

Iraq was planned before 911 (Why else would Cheney have maps dividing up the oil fields). A lot of people saw Iraq for what it was, a chance to remove a bad dude in control of a big piece of oil, who wanted to start selling it in euros. When you have countries outright saying they didn't believe our intel about Iraq - you knew were were being rushed into a bad war.

The same countries that supposedly didn't help in Iraq because they had side deals with Saddam, also have side deals with Gaddafi yet had no problem joining in this fight. Ask yourself why.

[philswin]

Dont kid yourself if George Bush took these actions without consulting congress they would be so much criticism from the left, Nancy Pelosi would be whining on MSNBC non-stop. We have military plans of attack on every enemy nation, that is what our Military planners do. I am not opposed to military actions at all, but we need a congressional vote. Congress needs to know the estimated cost, timeline, strategy and have a chance to question and discuss, then everyone needs to go on record with a vote.

[pavyracer]

McCain said today Obama should have authorized the attacks sooner and everyone needs to back him and the troops now. Last I checked he is Republican. Only ones bitching about Obama are the conservative radio like Limbaugh who only cares on how to line his pockets with cash from radio advertising.

[The Madcap]

If he walked on water, they'd complain that he's a shitty swimmer.

[The Madcap]

Why doesn't the U.S. attack Mugabe in Zimbabwe? He's doing the same shit Gadhafi is doing in Libya.

What's going on in Zimbabwe doesn't present much danger beyond it's own borders.

[The Madcap]

US president has no real power. He's a puppet in the hands of the military-industrial complex.

Here's Obama before he had learned that:


Here's what he did as president:


Obama 100% betrayed the People of the US. But if he had stood up they would simply have assassinated him. So all he can be accused of is being a coward.

Obama didn't betray the American people. The American people betrayed themselves. All politicians are liars. Always have been. The people who believed Obama's commitment to peace are nothing more than naive dolts who allowed themselves to be duped out of their hatred for GWB.

Obama knew all this shit going in. He tells his voters what they want to hear. Just like the GOP does. There are certain practical realities of being President of the United States. And those realities include having to maintain the U.S.' status as the supreme military power. A cynic will tell you this is because of the MID's greed. A realist will tell you it's because the U.S. can't escape its past. Either way, it doesn't change the reality: the US has enemies and will always have enemies. And they need a way to protect themselves. Some people have found a way to make a profit off of it. Good or bad, that's the reality. And any politician who portrays it another way is only doing so to con you out of a vote.

[Emily_Haines]

unreal we have to strip the rights away from the peasants because their is too much debt
no more heating assistance
no more npr
and what to we get in return
more war and more debt

[The Madcap]

You can't be serious with an asassine statement like this can you? Bush totally gave the American public a big F U when he went after his "daddy's old enemy" in Iraq and used the 9/11 bombing as an excuse. He basically used the American people and the nation's tragic suffering as a whole for his own greedy and selfish causes. And everybody knows it....

Everyone knows also that he OUTRIGHT LIED about any WMD links between terrorists and Saddam Hussein....it was all just a cover up so he could go in and fight his "daddy's war".

Get a clue before you post your nonsense.

Everybody knows it eh?

Well as we all know from gambling, what everybody knows is never what you need to know is it?

You speak of a "cover-up." That's one way to look at it. I think cover-story would be a better term. And it had nothing to do with greed or fighting daddy's war.

It had to do with maintaining the US's position as an unchallengeable global power. Which, if you understand the "peace through strength" dynamic, has always been a top priority for any sitting U.S. President. Some talk about it openly (Reagan), some pretend it doesn't exist (Carter/Clinton/Obama), but it is always there.

The fact is that Bush didn't trick anybody in congress, nor did he use the American people. What he did was get compliant consent from those in his party AND THE DEMOCRATS, to set about protecting the United States from major threats in the future. And they developed a plausible cover story to get the American people to go along with it.

There were enough Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee and in other high places to expose Bush's "lies" from the get go. They didn't. And they didn't because that wasn't the plan.

The plan was to go into Iraq and take out Saddam real quick before he (or his crazy fukking sons) could use Iraq's vast resources to create a major threat the west would have much more trouble dealing with further down the line. And from there they could turn Iraq into a political ally, using the country not only as a staging point for efforts in Afghanistan, but also future operations against other foreign threats if they became necessary.

And in the beginning Bush had most everybody's support, as the Dems full well knew that if anything went wrong, they could just blame Bush for "lying" and distance themselves from the WMD argument and the decision to invade. As that was part of the deal. The ability to denounce the war if anything went wrong. Which they did after Iraq turned into a giant fiasco.

For if you'll recall, during the first few weeks nobody gave a shit. The general sense in the country was "We're invading Iraq again? Oh. Okay. What's on Sportscenter?"

But then shit turned out to be tougher than we anticipated. And the public started getting a little antsy. And before too long, after more and more American lives were lost, well it became a major shitstorm, and the Democrats had to run like they stole something. Which they did. They weren't going to lose their office over it. Who would? And that's how it shook down.

Look, no President is going to deliberately put US lives in harm's way simply for greed or revenge. Because those lives being put in harm's way, they know the deal. Maybe not every last man, but enough that America's military would collapse over night if they found out they were being used for such a hollow purpose.

The fact is that war has grown a lot more complicated than it used to be. And defending America's shores is increasingly difficult. When you're the top dog, no one cares if you fall. And many want to do the felling. This means that you have to do your best to determine one's enemies and threats before they become big enough to cut you down. Because once they've got everything in place, you're fukked. Either you're going down, or you're going to be severely wounded.

Do you remember some years back when the chic discussion in American politics was about "preemptive" military action? This was largely a non-issue when everyone thought there were WMD's. Because in that situation, of course preemptive action is acceptable. That's why the WMD's not being there is such a big deal to some people. Without the threat of nuclear war, a lot of people don't believe in preemptive military action.

But that chic argument that came out when Bush was in office about preemptive action was all encompassing. It wasn't simply about nuclear weapons. No. It was about preemptive action in general. And why? How come all these insiders and politicians who had originally supported the invasion of Iraq when there were WMD's were suddenly against any form of preemptive military action? Because that's what it was about from the outset.

It wasn't about nukes. It was about Iraq's development as a potential threat. It was about the future development of a nuclear state, not a current one. The last thing the U.S. needs is another country with nukes. That's just another country we have to spend resources to monitor, and have to worry about getting a nuke up our ass if we have to invade them. And if we just up and let everybody have nukes, eventually we won't have the man power to be able to cover our ass.

The war was never about Saddam already having WMD's. It was never about greed or revenge. It was about ensuring the safety of the United States through the continuation of the "peace through strength" doctrine. And the only problem was that we miscalculated the cost. If we had taken out Saddam in three weeks, nobody in this country would give a shit about the WMDs argument. The only reason we care is because we need some reason to explain all the death and misery that has been caused. We need something to believe in to make such sacrifices necessary. And for many people, the idea of engaging in preemptive military action when that action is only preempting a potential threat, and not an operational one, is just not enough. And that's why we got the cover story of WMD's.

The point is, the leaders of the free world not only have the job of protecting the people, but of also having to keep clear the consciences of those people they are protecting. And that's a difficult fukking job. Some choose to do it by "rallying around the flag" and building patriotic support against an enemy (Bush/FDR/LBJ/Nixon), and others choose to do it by constantly talking about peace while still engaging in military action (Obama/Clinton/Carter). Either way, that's the President's job. And it's an impossible job to perform without innocents getting caught up in the process.

We are the United States of America. We aren't perfect, but it ain't a perfect world we live in neither. Should we stand up for our imperfections or surrender to everyone else's?

[Data]

I am not really sure what these rebels stand for.

Perhaps these article may shed some light:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_837894.html
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/201...itancyus-milit

I was (and still am) 100% sure that Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

Same here.

[Data]

What's the O/U before somebody posts that Israelis, Corporations, secret societies, connected famliies, Rothschilds or some political elites are really running things behind the scenes and not the figurehead president?

I personally don't care, I have all the suspects on my Ignore List.

[ByeShea]

Obama is going to do what he does best.

Read a teleprompter?

We elected a turd as a president. Point all the fingers you want at others but the fact is the country threw in the towel on him this past November. And it's only gotten worse for him since, there will be no comeback.

Personally, I think his decline started when he demonstrated some real public and real un-Presidential behavior by badmouthing the Cambridge Police Department after that Harvard professor flipped out about racism.

With that one (the beer summit) Obama unnecessarily injected himself into a story that ultimately made him look bad. It's just one instance of a very clear pattern he's established, kind of a passive/aggressive anger where he thinks he's being smooth but he consistently backs losing sides.

Can't fool all the people all the time. Bet against this bum.

[King Mayan]

Read a teleprompter?

We elected a turd as a president. Point all the fingers you want at others but the fact is the country threw in the towel on him this past November. And it's only gotten worse for him since, there will be no comeback.

Personally, I think his decline started when he demonstrated some real public and real un-Presidential behavior by badmouthing the Cambridge Police Department after that Harvard professor flipped out about racism.

With that one (the beer summit) Obama unnecessarily injected himself into a story that ultimately made him look bad. It's just one instance of a very clear pattern he's established, kind of a passive/aggressive anger where he thinks he's being smooth but he consistently backs losing sides.

Can't fool all the people all the time. Bet against this bum.

Did you vote for this Bum????

[rsnnh12]

Did you vote for this Bum????

Why do people keep posting pics of Bush with the Mission Accomplished banner?

Him saying major combat operations in Iraq had ended is comparable to Obama saying all combat troops are out of Iraq... obviously the war wasn't over at "Mission Accomplished" (and it wasn't claimed to be by Bush), and obviously combat isn't over even though our "combat troops" are out of Iraq

[King Mayan]

Why do people keep posting pics of Bush with the Mission Accomplished banner?

Him saying major combat operations in Iraq had ended is comparable to Obama saying all combat troops are out of Iraq... obviously the war wasn't over at "Mission Accomplished" (and it wasn't claimed to be by Bush), and obviously combat isn't over even though our "combat troops" are out of Iraq

So mission accomplished means the mission hasn't been accomplished???what???? Like I said did you vote for this retard????

[rsnnh12]

So mission accomplished means the mission hasn't been accomplished???what???? Like I said did you vote for this retard????

Well, technically, the Mission Accomplished banner was about the aircraft carrier, which was finishing a 10 month tour (and therefore completing their mission). The extra meaning was about the initial invasion being a 'mission accomplished'. Bush even acknowledged in the speech on the carrier that there was still a lot of work to do in Iraq...

And, no, I didn't vote for retard Obama

[wtf]

i thought the mission was to get rid of saddam, i am sure the was accomplished very quickly

actually amazingly fast, but lets not let facts get in the way of an emotive argument