World Wide Civil Unrest - World War III?

[Douger]

Achoo !

 

[SFC Ollie]

In 2002:

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

The “dumb war” Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

March 2011:

In his March 28, 2011 speech justifying his decision to attack the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, Obama cited Gadhafi’s record of brutality, saying that allowing Gadhafi to continue his brutality was not an option.

Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a

Now I know people change their perspective over time and this was a time of nine years with the President now experiencing the realities of the presidency rather than speculating and opining from a detached and partisan driven point of view. So I can see how he might have genuinely felt one way in 2002 but have a changed perspective in 2011.

He would be more reassuring however if he would articulate the process and reasons for a change of heart instead of reversing his reasons without explanation and pretending that was sufficient.

The amazing thing is that the Obamabots don't see anything wrong...

 

[Samson]

In 2002:

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

The “dumb war” Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

March 2011:

In his March 28, 2011 speech justifying his decision to attack the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, Obama cited Gadhafi’s record of brutality, saying that allowing Gadhafi to continue his brutality was not an option.

Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a

Now I know people change their perspective over time and this was a time of nine years with the President now experiencing the realities of the presidency rather than speculating and opining from a detached and partisan driven point of view. So I can see how he might have genuinely felt one way in 2002 but have a changed perspective in 2011.

He would be more reassuring however if he would articulate the process and reasons for a change of heart instead of reversing his reasons without explanation and pretending that was sufficient.

The amazing thing is that the Obamabots don't see anything wrong...

What choice do they have?

 

[High_Gravity]

Seems as though Washington just doesn't have a clue what they are doing.....

But then, we knew that.....

But don't you think it curious? Obama's world apology tour included almost all the main Muslim heads of state with assurance that we wanted peace, good will, justice, clean living etc. etc. etc. or whatever sounded good at the time. He essentially begged their forgiveness for our arrogance, our improper meddling and lack of appreciation for their culture, etc. etc. etc.

So what is it now with supporting the rebels in Egypt? And militarily supporting the rebels in Lybia? And so far stony silence of the wholesale slaughter going on in Syria, but I suspect that will change if it starts generating a lot of media coverage.

What's going on?

The message we have sent the Arab countries is this, even if we are your friends, at the first sign of trouble and the first chance we get, we will stab you in the back and throw in our lot with the opposition, even if we don't know anything about them.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It is getting a bit confusing. I can understand and even support protecting innocent civilians in Libya. But that is not what we are doing. Seems like we have taken the side of the rebels and we don't even know for certain who they are or what they stand for.

This is a very dangerous game we are getting into here.

 

[High_Gravity]

It is getting a bit confusing. I can understand and even support protecting innocent civilians in Libya. But that is not what we are doing. Seems like we have taken the side of the rebels and we don't even know for certain who they are or what they stand for.

This is a very dangerous game we are getting into here.

We know Ghaddafi and with him, you know what you are getting. He came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, paid reparations to the Lockerbies victims families, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. Why are we so quick to throw him under the bus and cast our lot in with the rebels when we don't even know who they really are?

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems as though Washington just doesn't have a clue what they are doing.....

But then, we knew that.....

But don't you think it curious? Obama's world apology tour included almost all the main Muslim heads of state with assurance that we wanted peace, good will, justice, clean living etc. etc. etc. or whatever sounded good at the time. He essentially begged their forgiveness for our arrogance, our improper meddling and lack of appreciation for their culture, etc. etc. etc.

So what is it now with supporting the rebels in Egypt? And militarily supporting the rebels in Lybia? And so far stony silence of the wholesale slaughter going on in Syria, but I suspect that will change if it starts generating a lot of media coverage.

What's going on?

The message we have sent the Arab countries is this, even if we are your friends, at the first sign of trouble and the first chance we get, we will stab you in the back and throw in our lot with the opposition, even if we don't know anything about them.

Maybe that's the message. Or maybe the intent is to use them as an excuse to support some ideology that was the intention all along? We don't really know do we.

 

[Foxfyre]

And our own partisan divisions are making it pretty difficult to get anybody to focus on anything but that.

 

[Foxfyre]

It has long been noted, by at least some, that the U.N. is a politically and ideologically impotent organization with no gut or inclination to enforce world peace or even promote it except in the case of a select few.

It did authorize via resolution a no fly zone over Lybia without including any dates that it would begin or end, without committing any funds to support it, and without assigning anybody to implement it.

Re recent violence in Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia unless I missed something in the last few months: crickets.

***************************************

It is obvious that those hoping that NATO would come to Obama’s rescue, NATO will not be doing that:

NATO Rules Out Arming Rebels
MARCH 31, 2011, 5:22 P.M. ET

BRUSSELS—Officials at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which early Thursday assumed control of allied operations to enforce the United Nations mandate in Libya, said they aren't considering arming Libyan rebels.
Simmering debate in Washington and Europe about whether to arm rebel groups and intensified amid the opposition's recent retreat from territory they had gained under the umbrella of coalition airstrikes.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Stockholm that he has taken note of the "ongoing discussion in a number of countries" about arming the rebels but "as far as NATO is concerned...we will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo," which he said applies "across the board to all sides in this conflict."
NATO Rules Out Arming Rebels - WSJ.com

And now that we have spent millions installing air attack capabilities near Lybia and have dropped a lot of very expensive and no doubt deadly bombs already, NOW President Obama is wanting to know who the rebels are???????

Perhaps somebody will have better memory than I do, but isn’t the following story a bit of de ja vu when we think back on the incremental steps that got us involved in a ten year bloody war in Vietnam?

In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels
March 30, 9:32 PM

The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials.

The information has become more crucial as the administration and its coalition partners move closer to providing direct military aid or guidance to the disorganized and beleaguered rebel army.

Although the administration has pledged that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed to Libya, officials said Wednesday that President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.
In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels - The Washington Post

And if the situation in Syria boils over enough will that be a fourth front?

And you KNOW there are some just itching for a reason to invade Iran and take care of those nukes.

Is anybody paying attention to any of this?

 

[SFC Ollie]

People won't wake up to the truth until they start getting their draft notices. But as long as it's Obama that will be OK too. As long as it isn't them getting the notice.....