Obama: Military Action Against Libya on the Table!!!

GHook93

Aristotle
Apr 22, 2007
20,150
3,524
290
Chicago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-nato-weighing-potential-military-options-libya/#

I say FUCK NO! Muslims are an ungrateful bunch. Look at the last few times we helped them and what we got.
(1) Afghanistan - The Russians were mowing the Mujadeen down with ease. Don't believe the bullshit that Afghanistant is unconquerable due to it's terain. It was the US stinger missiles and US money that saved them. What did we get for it? 9/11 and a base for Al Qaeda.

(2) Kosovo - First, the Albanians, Bosinians, Turks and Muslims stole the lands and ethnically cleansed it from Serbia. When Serbia reacted, then did it with bloodlust. One nation saved the make believe Kosovian People from genocide, AMERICA! What did we get terrorist attacks and a HIGHLY RADICALIZED MUSLIM NATION!

(3) Kuwait - Another country we saved from total annhiliation by a genocidal and brutal dictator. Kuwaitis spit at us and are very ungrateful.

(4) Iraq - No doubt in 10 years Iraq will be a terrorist sponsoring base.

(5) Somalia - We feed the people and they become pirates and terrorists!

Any time we help the muslims they end up spitting in our faces, becoming radicalized and eventually unleash waves of terrorist upon us. Just say NO, to helping Libyain people!
 
Last edited:
I think you posted the wrong link...

And you cant possibly be telling us the truth here. I mean Rdean assured us that this is some GOP plot to take us to war in Libya. Why would he lie?
 
I think we have enough military action already on our plates.
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - we gonna send the Marines to the shores of Tripoli an' dey gonna give ol' Khaddafi a butt-whuppin'...
:tongue:
Congressional leaders push Obama administration for more aggressive Libya response
Monday, March 7, 2011; Congressional leaders prodded the Obama administration on Sunday for a more aggressive U.S. response to Libya's increasingly brutal attacks on opposition groups - calling for a no-fly zone and other military measures - but White House officials cautioned against being drawn into a potentially protracted and costly military campaign.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for the first time raised the possibility of bombing military airfields in Libya to deny the use of runways to Moammar Gaddafi's air force. Two of the Senate's top Republicans, Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.), also spoke in favor of U.S. military involvement to keep Libyan warplanes grounded. "We can't risk allowing Gaddafi to massacre people from the air," McCain, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said on ABC's "This Week With Christiane Amanpour."

But White House officials appeared to play down expectations of an expanded U.S. military role in the immediate future. While insisting that no options have been ruled out, White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley cited the difficulty of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, a vast country armed with modern, Russian-supplied antiaircraft defenses. "Lots of people throw around phrases like no-fly zone," Daley said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "They talk about it as though it's just a video game."

Daley's remarks echoed the caution voiced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who dismissed as "loose talk" the clamor for a U.S.-led air campaign. Gates said that any effort to secure the skies over Libya, a country roughly the size of Alaska, would have to begin with military strikes on Gaddafi's air defense network and would inevitably lead to an expanded U.S. mission. Kerry and other senators argued Sunday that Libya's air force could be disabled without the kind of expense and commitment required to maintain previous no-fly zones in Iraq and the Balkans. The Massachusetts Democrat also called for turning over to rebel groups some of Gaddafi's estimated $30 billion in frozen assets.

A no-fly zone is "not the only option for what one could do," Kerry said. "One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time," he said on the CBS news program "Face the Nation." McConnell, on the same program, said a no-fly zone was "worth considering."

MORE

See also:

Obama Says Military Option Still Under Consideration for Libya
March 07, 2011 - President Barack Obama says a wide range of potential options in Libya are under consideration, including a military response to the fighting there.
As the fighting in Libya increasingly resembles a civil war, the U.S. administration is coming under increased pressure to take action. Over the weekend, several lawmakers, including former presidential candidates John McCain and John Kerry, argued that the U.S. and its allies should impose a no-fly zone over Libya. President Barack Obama referred to Libya in brief remarks in the Oval Office after meeting with visiting Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were reported to be conducting air strikes on a rebel-held eastern town and battling opposition fighters in the east and west of the country.

"And I think Prime Minister Gillard and I both share a very firm conviction that the violence that’s been taking place and perpetrated by the government in Libya is unacceptable," he said. He said, the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, and his loyalists will be held accountable for continuing violence. "In the meantime, we've got NATO, as we speak, consulting in Brussels around a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya," the president said.

In a briefing with reporters at the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said the main military options under consideration are establishing a no-fly zone, enforcing a U.N. arms embargo, and protecting humanitarian aid operations. At a news conference in Brussels Monday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance has "no intention" of intervening in Libya for the time being, but is conducting "prudent planning for any eventuality." President Obama said he had just authorized an additional $15 million to be provided to humanitarian organizations working in Libya.

Source
 
So he can't abscond with the money...
:cool:
Libya: British plans to strip Gaddafi of oil revenue
08 Mar 2011 - Britain is studying plans to take billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues away from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime and place them under the control of the United Nations.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has told MPs that he is considering the case for international action to divert oil revenues into an escrow account that would be administered by the UN on behalf of the Libyan people. The plan, similar to the oil-for-food system imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq after the first Gulf War, would require the UN Security Council to invoke its powers under Chapter VII of the UN charter.

Mr Hague said he was looking at the plan as part of efforts to "reduce the financial flows to the Gaddafi regime" amid fears that state oil revenues are helping to fund violence against opposition groups and civilian protesters. The personal finances of the dictator and his household are subject to international sanctions and asset-freezes, but the regime continues to have access to hundreds of millions of dollars' of state oil revenues.

Although some oil production facilities such as Ras Lanuf are in opposition hands, Col Gaddafi still holds Libya's largest oil terminal, Es Sider. Before the challenge to the regime, Libya was exporting around 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, making it the 12th largest exporter in the world. Today, exports are sharply down, with some industry analysts suggesting the regime can produce only about 200,000 barrels a day.

But even at those levels, high oil prices mean that oil exports could give the regime revenues of more than £100 million a week. Oil revenues make up about 80 per cent of the Libyan state's budget. Responding to a parliamentary question from Rory Stewart, a Conservative MP, Mr Hague confirmed that Britain was looking at the options for a Libyan escrow account. "We continue to look at other options on top of the asset freeze and the measures we have already taken," he said.

MORE
 
Obama: NATO, U.S. Weighing Potential Military Options on Libya - FoxNews.com

I say FUCK NO! Muslims are an ungrateful bunch. Look at the last few times we helped them and what we got.
(1) Afghanistan - The Russians were mowing the Mujadeen down with ease. Don't believe the bullshit that Afghanistant is unconquerable due to it's terain. It was the US stinger missiles and US money that saved them. What did we get for it? 9/11 and a base for Al Qaeda.

(2) Kosovo - First, the Albanians, Bosinians, Turks and Muslims stole the lands and ethnically cleansed it from Serbia. When Serbia reacted, then did it with bloodlust. One nation saved the make believe Kosovian People from genocide, AMERICA! What did we get terrorist attacks and a HIGHLY RADICALIZED MUSLIM NATION!

(3) Kuwait - Another country we saved from total annhiliation by a genocidal and brutal dictator. Kuwaitis spit at us and are very ungrateful.

(4) Iraq - No doubt in 10 years Iraq will be a terrorist sponsoring base.

(5) Somalia - We feed the people and they become pirates and terrorists!

Any time we help the muslims they end up spitting in our faces, becoming radicalized and eventually unleash waves of terrorist upon us. Just say NO, to helping Libyain people!

Don't forget Lebanon, we got around 300+ of our boys killed there back in the 80's.
 
Another instance of an equation as obvious as 1+1=2.


Democrats=Republicans

Obama=Bush
 
Foreign policy is like going into a bar late on Saturday night in a small town that has a women's college.
Every option is on the table.
 
Obama: NATO, U.S. Weighing Potential Military Options on Libya - FoxNews.com

I say FUCK NO! Muslims are an ungrateful bunch. Look at the last few times we helped them and what we got.
(1) Afghanistan - The Russians were mowing the Mujadeen down with ease. Don't believe the bullshit that Afghanistant is unconquerable due to it's terain. It was the US stinger missiles and US money that saved them. What did we get for it? 9/11 and a base for Al Qaeda.

(2) Kosovo - First, the Albanians, Bosinians, Turks and Muslims stole the lands and ethnically cleansed it from Serbia. When Serbia reacted, then did it with bloodlust. One nation saved the make believe Kosovian People from genocide, AMERICA! What did we get terrorist attacks and a HIGHLY RADICALIZED MUSLIM NATION!

(3) Kuwait - Another country we saved from total annhiliation by a genocidal and brutal dictator. Kuwaitis spit at us and are very ungrateful.

(4) Iraq - No doubt in 10 years Iraq will be a terrorist sponsoring base.

(5) Somalia - We feed the people and they become pirates and terrorists!

Any time we help the muslims they end up spitting in our faces, becoming radicalized and eventually unleash waves of terrorist upon us. Just say NO, to helping Libyain people!

Don't forget Lebanon, we got around 300+ of our boys killed there back in the 80's.

We are now arming the Lebanese Army, which will eventually be the Hezbollah army! We never learn!

We armed the Saudi Prince's army. In not too long they will go the way of Murburak and Gaddiff and those arms will be in the hands of terrorist! Its inevitable. Remember the Iranian air force is still primarily made up of US airplanes we provided the Shah!
 

Forum List

Back
Top