US Military Action in Libya?

[Phatscotty]

the second largest deployment of Minnesota troops since WW2 were sent to Kuwait.

It's to support the draw-down of troops from Iraq.

[saxitoxin]

I live in the region and I know that Gadaffi is an oppressive terrorist... Libyans are revolting over a criminal family. wake up saxi

Instead of nit-picking about Qaddafi this, Qadaffi that, we should set aside our differences and focus our irritation on US/NATO/Obama adventurism.

[Qwert]

well another succesfull nato(us) attack on Tripoli Buildings. Target are not manage to hide, and NATO(us) are quite happy that these new strategy its much better then to atatck mobile targets. Rate success its almost 100%, and civilians are only colateral damage if they been in buildings. Probably if they hit every bilding in tripoli,soon or later Quadafy will left for place to hide,and will be in open, become easy target to hit.

[saxitoxin]

FIGHTING ERUPTS BETWEEN U.S. AND PAKISTAN

Obama's newest war -

NATO helicopters got into a shooting match with Pakistani troops at a border post, injuring two soldiers. Initial reports indicate that the NATO helicopters crossed into North Waziristan. It’s not yet clear if the helicopters were pursuing insurgents, but they encountered a border post manned by 20 soldiers at Datta Khel. Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper reports that the Pakistanis sent their own helicopters from Mirinshah to Datta Khel, but the “purpose of the Pakistani mobilization was unclear.”

Pakistan is pissed over the bin Laden raid. Its defiant generals have expelled U.S. military and intelligence personnel.

[saxitoxin]

The Republican majority just voted to back a proposal by the Democrat minority in the U.S. House of Representatives to invoke the War Powers Act and cut funding for Obama's attacks against the Libyan people and the Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahiryah. The measure now moves to the Senate for vote.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/15/h ... ut_funding

Though, for political reasons, the murder of the Libyan people is nominally under the puppet flags of the UK/France, it is expected "NATO" military operations will collapse within 72 hours following removal of the American jock-strap. Prime Minister Harper has vowed Canada's 6 plucky little planes will continue along, however, in reality they will be immediately dropped out of the sky like flies once Libyan People's Army air defense batteries come online following removal of NATO air interdiction forces.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/14/NATO22.tn

[saxitoxin]

According to this guy wearing a Dengar costume*, two Libyan generals who wanted to get on TMZ by "defecting" found their plans foiled when the Government of Algeria put them on a plane straight back to Tripoli whereupon they were immediately arrested by the Libyan Sûreté.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlwlXNnou3I

* http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dengar

[Pirlo]

According to this guy wearing a Dengar costume*, two Libyan generals who wanted to get on TMZ by "defecting" found their plans foiled when the Government of Algeria put them on a plane straight back to Tripoli whereupon they were immediately arrested by the Libyan Sûreté.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlwlXNnou3I

* http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dengar

no surprise... Algeria government and president are another example of a corrupt regime and a dictator. they are hopefully next.

[BigBallinStalin]

There was an American on the FOX news talking about this upcoming suit being filed against the US government for preventing Congress from voting on going to war with Libya.

[Phatscotty]

There was an American on the FOX news talking about this upcoming suit being filed against the US government for preventing Congress from voting on going to war with Libya.

dude, sweet!

[Pirlo]

There was an American on the FOX news talking about this upcoming suit being filed against the US government for preventing Congress from voting on going to war with Libya.

I wouldn't call it a war. I think it is a massacre committed by Gadafi. and I would call the american/nato part "military intervention"?

[BigBallinStalin]

There was an American on the FOX news talking about this upcoming suit being filed against the US government for preventing Congress from voting on going to war with Libya.

I wouldn't call it a war. I think it is a massacre committed by Gadafi. and I would call the american/nato part "military intervention"?

The media is a powerful tool used for distorting fact and fiction. Were the rebels really the kind of guys you would want running Libya? Who really are these guys? Not sure, and no one really was. What are they really fighting for?

And was Qaddafi indiscriminately massacring people or specifically targeting the rebels? Judging from the body counts so far, the dead have been overwhelmingly adult males (as of May 2011); therefore, there really wasn't a "massacre" occurring.


Is bombing another country and causing collateral damage a declaration of war or "military intervention." That's just an arbitrary distinction. Bombing a country is still an act of war--if not, then Al-Qaeda merely engaged in "military intervention" against the US on 9-11-2001. =P

[saxitoxin]

Is bombing another country and causing collateral damage a declaration of war or "military intervention." That's just an arbitrary distinction. Bombing a country is still an act of war--if not, then Al-Qaeda merely engaged in "military intervention" against the US on 9-11-2001. =P

That's a great point, BBS.

I'm not convinced there really are any rebels, outside a handful of ragtags in Benghazi. RT just ran a report that the Russian envoy there drove for 5 hours from the Tunisian border, felt entirely safe the whole time and didn't see evidence of a single insurgent. He arrived in Tripoli and played a game of chess with Col. Qaddafi who seemed relaxed and disinterested. If you follow hashtag #feb17 on Twitter, every other day Libyan "rebels" (hilariously all based in Canada and the U.S.) are whining "XYZ is being attacked! Where's NATO!?" "ABC is being attacked! Help us NATO!" If there are not enough rebels in a country of 6 million people to defeat Libya's 25,000 man Army and a handful of police with the aid of hundreds of NATO bombers and cruise missiles, is this really a popular revolt?

The rats are going to be crushed and then there will be hell to pay in the West as all of America and Britain's oil franchises get transferred to Gazprom and PetroChina. If Europe and America think unemployment is high and the economy is bad now, just wait until Marathon Oi, BP and ENI all get kicked out of Libya and start laying off thousands of workers in their home countries as their share prices tumble.

[saxitoxin]

It's also relevant to point out that - even now that Libya is being bombed 50 times a day - the country has not enacted any form of conscription. There is active recruiting going on, but it is voluntary and recruits are being offered $50,000 bonus payment for a 6-month enlistment. What "dictatorship" that needs manpower doesn't simply take it?

Here's a video of an Anti-NATO protest in Serbia the other day that was broken-up by the pro-NATO government that supposedly supports freedom of speech, even though 79% of Serbians oppose the NATO attacks on Libya. Watch at the end when a man simply states two anti-NATO slogans through a bullhorn and three plainclothes IPF agents show up and say "sir, please come with us" before whisking him away never to be seen again. This is the type of democracy Obama, Harper, Sarkozy and whomever is running Britain this week wants in Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN_tKGbCnbE

[patches70]

It's also relevant to point out that - even now that Libya is being bombed 50 times a day - the country has not enacted any form of conscription. There is active recruiting going on, but it is voluntary and recruits are being offered $50,000 bonus payment for a 6-month enlistment. What "dictatorship" that needs manpower doesn't simply take it?

Here's a video of an Anti-NATO protest in Serbia the other day that was broken-up by the pro-NATO government that supposedly supports freedom of speech, even though 79% of Serbians oppose the NATO attacks on Libya. Watch at the end when a man simply states two anti-NATO slogans through a bullhorn and three plainclothes IPF agents show up and say "sir, please come with us" before whisking him away never to be seen again. This is the type of democracy Obama, Harper, Sarkozy and whomever is running Britain this week wants in Libya.

Yeah, in the US only 26% support American involvement in Libya.

If Qaddafi survives this and remains in power over whatever it is that he controls, it is going to be a punch in the face to the US and NATO. Screw NATO, we shouldn't be involved with that alliance anymore anyway. Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves.

Eisenhower told Britain and France to go to hell when they wanted us to get involved with their Suez stuff. We should have told them the same thing this time in regards to Libya. And absolutely, bombing another country is an act of war. There is no two ways about it.

There is going to be a showdown between Congress and the Executive branch. I have a feeling that Congress is going to find out real quick just how much of their power they have given away over the years. It will be a rude awakening....

[thegreekdog]

I agree with patches on this one. What is Congress going to do if the president continues to assert his "war" powers? Not vote on stuff? Go on strike? I hope so. In any event, there is really no real precedent for the president fighting wars (no legal precedent anyway). World War Two? Congress declared war. Presidents Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II began the trend of fighting without declaring war. I'm not sure why Congress didn't vote on those "conflicts," but, well, they didn't. And as patches indicated, it appears they ceded these powers to the president.

What I found interesting (heard on the radio today) is that a number of formerly hawkish Republicans (Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachman) have been "leading" the charge on what I'm referring to as non-interventionism. Ironically, Fox News (where the story came from) has not picked up on the fact that Ron Paul has been leading that charge well before the other Republicans got in the act. As far as I'm concerned the mainline Republicans are posturing because they see the trend away from hawkishness.

[patches70]

I agree with patches on this one. What is Congress going to do if the president continues to assert his "war" powers? Not vote on stuff? Go on strike? I hope so. In any event, there is really no real precedent for the president fighting wars (no legal precedent anyway). World War Two? Congress declared war. Presidents Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II began the trend of fighting without declaring war. I'm not sure why Congress didn't vote on those "conflicts," but, well, they didn't. And as patches indicated, it appears they ceded these powers to the president.

What I found interesting (heard on the radio today) is that a number of formerly hawkish Republicans (Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachman) have been "leading" the charge on what I'm referring to as non-interventionism. Ironically, Fox News (where the story came from) has not picked up on the fact that Ron Paul has been leading that charge well before the other Republicans got in the act. As far as I'm concerned the mainline Republicans are posturing because they see the trend away from hawkishness.

Ron Paul has always been right on these issues. Yet he is always ignored. He is right on a great number of things.

The precedent for fighting undeclared wars started back in Korea and we haven't declared war since, yet we have fought numerous wars. This is a travesty of the highest magnitude IMO. The Constitution is clear on this, Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to declare war. The President may be the commander in chief but it is Congress who decides if we fight or not. In the case we are attacked, that is an immediate state of war and Congress should act appropriately and declare war.

Even for Afghanistan, we should have formally declared war. We were attacked after all. But, it seems, the word "War" is a dirty word that cannot be used. If we would just adhere to the limits place on Government by the Constitution, we would find ourselves in a lot fewer messes and the world would probably be a better place for it. But who can know?


The Newt's, Romney's and Bachman's are only opposed to the Libya action because the polls tell them to be. Normally they are quite hawkish and Neo-con, always ready to go in guns blazing to spread democracy and the American way of life. This is not what our Founder's intended for our practice of foreign affairs. Our Founder's expected us to be good neighbors and engage in trade, not war. If other nations wanted to cut each other's throats, then so be it, it is not our concern. When Congress declares formal war though, then it's time to go in and bring the Wrath of God upon the enemy until they capitulate and give in to every one of our demands. Then we get the hell out of there and go back to being peaceful traders.

[Pirlo]

The media is a powerful tool used for distorting fact and fiction.

+1

Were the rebels really the kind of guys you would want running Libya?

of course not.

Who really are these guys? Not sure, and no one really was. What are they really fighting for?

I believe they are civilians or at least used to be before Feb 14. obviously, we are told that they are fighting for overthrowing Gadafi who ruled for +40 years.. I'm not very enlightened about Libya as a country; however, I have always seen Libyans who come to Jordan for Medical treatment due to lack of advanced one in Libya. last year, I met some Libyan guys in Lebanon, and when we discussed internet for example, they said internet in Libya is very slow like death and you can make coffee until a page like google loads.

I understand that Gadafi says Al-Qaida is doing this. but this is bullshit. Al-Qaida in the middle east is a myth, something used as a scarecrow

[Pirlo]

Is bombing another country and causing collateral damage a declaration of war or "military intervention." That's just an arbitrary distinction. Bombing a country is still an act of war--if not, then Al-Qaeda merely engaged in "military intervention" against the US on 9-11-2001. =P

That's a great point, BBS.

I'm not convinced there really are any rebels, outside a handful of ragtags in Benghazi. RT just ran a report that the Russian envoy there drove for 5 hours from the Tunisian border, felt entirely safe the whole time and didn't see evidence of a single insurgent. He arrived in Tripoli and played a game of chess with Col. Qaddafi who seemed relaxed and disinterested. If you follow hashtag #feb17 on Twitter, every other day Libyan "rebels" (hilariously all based in Canada and the U.S.) are whining "XYZ is being attacked! Where's NATO!?" "ABC is being attacked! Help us NATO!" If there are not enough rebels in a country of 6 million people to defeat Libya's 25,000 man Army and a handful of police with the aid of hundreds of NATO bombers and cruise missiles, is this really a popular revolt?

The rats are going to be crushed and then there will be hell to pay in the West as all of America and Britain's oil franchises get transferred to Gazprom and PetroChina. If Europe and America think unemployment is high and the economy is bad now, just wait until Marathon Oi, BP and ENI all get kicked out of Libya and start laying off thousands of workers in their home countries as their share prices tumble.

I do not care what media say about libya and revolution or situation there. but I heard Gadafi himself saying "I will not leave before Libya is burnt and turns to ash"

[Pirlo]

Screw NATO, we shouldn't be involved with that alliance anymore anyway. Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves.

I think US government is vindictive and wouldn't miss this chance. same reason why Iraq was invaded, or did you think it was for the sake of democracy? of course not. and oil alone is not a sufficient motivation.

although Syria is supposed to be more hostile than Libya, and although the violence used by Syria government against Syrian people is much worse than that in Libya, we don't see a serious reaction from US or NATO because Assad did not challenge US.

[thegreekdog]

Screw NATO, we shouldn't be involved with that alliance anymore anyway. Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves.

I think US government is vindictive and wouldn't miss this chance. same reason why Iraq was invaded, or did you think it was for the sake of democracy? of course not. and oil alone is not a sufficient motivation.

although Syria is supposed to be more hostile than Libya, and although the violence used by Syria government against Syrian people is much worse than that in Libya, we don't see a serious reaction from US or NATO because Assad did not challenge US.

I think the US government is run by people who find profitable ventures in war. Airplane manufacturers, bomb manufacturers, gun manufacturers, etc. all get nice big contracts when the United States is at war. That's why we spend so many billions on war... and when the people who run those companies and unions decide to donate their money, they just give it to both parties and whomever is president just does what they say.

[Pirlo]

Screw NATO, we shouldn't be involved with that alliance anymore anyway. Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves.

I think US government is vindictive and wouldn't miss this chance. same reason why Iraq was invaded, or did you think it was for the sake of democracy? of course not. and oil alone is not a sufficient motivation.

although Syria is supposed to be more hostile than Libya, and although the violence used by Syria government against Syrian people is much worse than that in Libya, we don't see a serious reaction from US or NATO because Assad did not challenge US.

I think the US government is run by people who find profitable ventures in war. Airplane manufacturers, bomb manufacturers, gun manufacturers, etc. all get nice big contracts when the United States is at war. That's why we spend so many billions on war... and when the people who run those companies and unions decide to donate their money, they just give it to both parties and whomever is president just does what they say.

of course this can be very true... some other oil countries agree to spend billions on weapons just to throw them in warehouses..

look at this joke...... UAE which spends (wastes) billions on weapons doesn't even claim or fight for its right to those islands occupied by Iran. and guess what, it got involved in the war on Gadafi. apparently, such country is extorted.

[saxitoxin]

The youth wing of South Africa's ruling African National Congress has officially called on President Zuma to file a criminal complaint against Barack Obama at the International Criminal Court for Obama's grave and serious war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of all standards of human decency.

"We further ask the South African government to lodge a criminal case with the International Criminal Court against Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy for launching an unprovoked war, destroying civilian infrastructure, killing innocent civilians, and attempting to assassinate a foreign head of state.” the resolution read.

Mr. Malema gave South African analysts much to chatter about during the congress, held at a convention center in the middle class suburb of Midrand, north of Johannesburg. Along with some 5,000 Youth League delegates from across the country, attendees included South Africa's Deputy President Kgalema Mothlante, several government ministers, members of the diplomatic corps, and representatives of other African liberation parties.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/A ... a-conflict

[Phatscotty]

Judging by the results of the poll, I can see why Obama Ignored the people and Congress when it comes to using the Military.

Here, Obama < Bush. At least Bush got Congressional Approval (yes, Bush abused that approval, I got it!). Overall, Obama still = Bush.



The people should ALWAYS have a say in a Democratic free society concerning when our forces are going to fight and for what reason, especially in the House of Representatives.

[patches70]

Since an arrest warrant has been issued for Gadhafi it is just a matter of time before European or American troops hit Libyan soil. Under the guise of carrying out the arrest. Since the European's have no stomach or ability for this sort of thing it will be up to we Americans to see this through and bring the madman to justice. So the story will go.

I wonder, will Obama seek approval from Congress?
or
When he orders troops in will he say that is the beginning of the War Power's Act and he has 60 days to find and capture/kill Gadhafi?
or
Will he say he needs no approval at all as he is just carrying out an order from the International Court?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_international_court_libya

[Phatscotty]

Since an arrest warrant has been issued for Gadhafi it is just a matter of time before European or American troops hit Libyan soil. Under the guise of carrying out the arrest. Since the European's have no stomach or ability for this sort of thing it will be up to we Americans to see this through and bring the madman to justice. So the story will go.

I wonder, will Obama seek approval from Congress?
or
When he orders troops in will he say that is the beginning of the War Power's Act and he has 60 days to find and capture/kill Gadhafi?
or
Will he say he needs no approval at all as he is just carrying out an order from the International Court?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_international_court_libya

Obama is such an internationalist. This will play well to Obama wanting to give up US sovereignty and answer to the world court.