Finally!! UN votes for No Fly Zone!!

[Trajan]

where does the recovering alcoholic part come in?

 

[eots]

UN to Authorize Strikes in Libya; Gadhafi Vows Offensive - ABC News

U.S. officials say the authorization will be used by a coalition of nations, including Arab countries, France and Great Britain, to bomb military targets inside Libya. The French prime minister said today that military action could come within hours of a UN vote, according to The Associated Press.

With attacks likely imminent, Gadhafi addressed the rebels on state television, warning them, "We will find you."

wow... Chris the liberal war monger, screaming..kill kill kill...because Obama is in office what a fuck head...the "rebels" are not civilian they are a backed foreign funded and backed military group but in a bombardment of lybia thousands of woman and children will die...thousands more will die in the aftermath...water treatment plants...baby milk formula makers...all kinds of death a destruction ..regular horror show... and here is Chrissy cheering it on

 

[Samson]

where does the recovering alcoholic part come in?

It doesn't matter, it was a scene in "W" and Jim wants credit for having memorized the plot.

Just go along with it.

 

[Big Fitz]

UN to Authorize Strikes in Libya; Gadhafi Vows Offensive - ABC News

U.S. officials say the authorization will be used by a coalition of nations, including Arab countries, France and Great Britain, to bomb military targets inside Libya. The French prime minister said today that military action could come within hours of a UN vote, according to The Associated Press.

With attacks likely imminent, Gadhafi addressed the rebels on state television, warning them, "We will find you."

wow... Chris the liberal war monger, screaming..kill kill kill...because Obama is in office what a fuck head...the "rebels" are not civilian they are a backed foreign funded and backed military group but in a bombardment of lybia thousands of woman and children will die...thousands more will die in the aftermath...water treatment plants...baby milk formula makers...all kinds of death a destruction ..regular horror show... and here is Chrissy cheering it on

With Obama in the white house... does it suddenly make it okay to bomb brown people? Wasn't that one of the left's criticism of racist America's military action?

So is Obama being racist by wanting to bomb more brown people is that his white half's doing/

 

[BenNatuf]

Quakdaffy is calling for UN observers, but by the time they get there, everyone but his loyalist may be dead. This guy is going to play the UN resolution like a fiddle.

Rolling Obama isn't hard, the mans a naive narcisistic idiot.

Ironically, Gadaffi is a narcissistic idiot.

Just goes to show age and experience>>>>youth and enthusiasm

 

[editec]

I hope its not too little too late

 

[BenNatuf]

I hope its not too little too late

Lots of people think it is, I'm not so sure. If you take away Khadaffy's air superiority, tanks and artillery, he may be at a numerical disadvantage vs the rebels. For certain the campaign is niether assured nor will it be easy or neccesarily short. But it is possible the rebels could prevail.

 

[Bill Angel]

I hope its not too little too late

Lots of people think it is, I'm not so sure. If you take away Khadaffy's air superiority, tanks and artillery, he may be at a numerical disadvantage vs the rebels. For certain the campaign is niether assured nor will it be easy or neccesarily short. But it is possible the rebels could prevail.

I read something this morning that was a real "bombshell", as they say:

"In an echo of the arguments made before the Iraq war, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers said one of the reasons for taking action is that Gadhafi's possesses stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

"'There are weapons of mass destruction there,' Rogers said. 'They have a very large stockpile of chemical weapons and it is believed they may still have stockpiles of some biological weapons.'."
See House Intel Chairman: No-Fly Zone "Absolutely the Right Thing to Do"

If what Representative Rogers is saying is correct, then the case for US intervention in Libya is in actuality GREATER than it turned out to be in the case of Iraq, an intervention that was predicated on Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons that in fact he did not possess.

 

[California Girl]

Funny, how we're all so focused on what the US is gonna do or not do... meanwhile, the EU and Arab League are actually working on a plan... backed by the US... which will be led by the EU and Arab nations. Please don't let facts get in the way of y'all ranting about shit that isn't gonna happen.

I'm not sure who's the bigger ranter "about shit that isn't gonna happen."

Those that expect the US to get involved or those that expect the UN resolution to make any difference.

I meant both. We get so focused on the US that we totally overlook what other countries are doing.

What I also find interesting is that we're so focused on the 'no fly zone' aspect of the resolution. Personally, I think the most interesting part.... and the reason why Gadaffi is panicking and appearing to be doing an about face, has nothing to do with the 'no fly zone' part of the resolution.... it's the part that authorizes the UN to 'influence' events on the ground. That means that they can openly provide support and assistance to the rebels etc. And that is what Gadaffi is afraid of, not the 'no fly zone'.

 

[BenNatuf]

I hope its not too little too late

Lots of people think it is, I'm not so sure. If you take away Khadaffy's air superiority, tanks and artillery, he may be at a numerical disadvantage vs the rebels. For certain the campaign is niether assured nor will it be easy or neccesarily short. But it is possible the rebels could prevail.

I read something this morning that was a real "bombshell", as they say:

"In an echo of the arguments made before the Iraq war, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers said one of the reasons for taking action is that Gadhafi's possesses stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

"'There are weapons of mass destruction there,' Rogers said. 'They have a very large stockpile of chemical weapons and it is believed they may still have stockpiles of some biological weapons.'."
See House Intel Chairman: No-Fly Zone "Absolutely the Right Thing to Do"

If what Representative Rogers is saying is correct, then the case for US intervention in Libya is in actuality GREATER than it turned out to be in the case of Iraq, an intervention that was predicated on Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons that in fact he did not possess.

Your assertion vis a vie Iraq is untrue. We know Sadam had WMD's, the question was never "did he have them", the question is "where are they". There is evedence that the weapons may have been trucked into Syria before military action comenced, there have been some chemical weapons found, though they are not either the ones we were looking for nor in the anounts we were looking for. There is also p0lenty of evedence that if Sadam survived the efforts to strip him of them, he would once again begin to aquire them. He had lots of stuff he wasn't supposed to have, just not the stuff we were looking for at the time we were looking for it. That said, WMD's was only one of about 14 reasons we invaded Iraq. To claim WMD's as the sole justification is disingenuous at best.

 

[JimH52]

Obama is not going to take military action unilaterally.

That's because he's not a leader.

While I agree with you, there is no need or unilateral military action. There's other countries, like France, that can do this one. Libya is more their concern than ours, or the Brits - or the EU jointly.

Just for once, let someone else take the lead.

And that is exactly what is happening. We are not in the lead, and therefore, we are not paying the bigger bills. Well played, I would say!

 

[California Girl]

That's because he's not a leader.

While I agree with you, there is no need or unilateral military action. There's other countries, like France, that can do this one. Libya is more their concern than ours, or the Brits - or the EU jointly.

Just for once, let someone else take the lead.

And that is exactly what is happening. We are not in the lead, and therefore, we are not paying the bigger bills. Well played, I would say!

I know. That's why I said it.... we're taking a lesser role on this one.

But... as I said... the important part of the resolution was not the 'no fly zone', it was the second part.... about enabling 'influencing' events on the ground. That's the part Gadaffi is concerned about.... and that's the part we should be interested in.

 

[JimH52]

Lots of people think it is, I'm not so sure. If you take away Khadaffy's air superiority, tanks and artillery, he may be at a numerical disadvantage vs the rebels. For certain the campaign is niether assured nor will it be easy or neccesarily short. But it is possible the rebels could prevail.

I read something this morning that was a real "bombshell", as they say:

"In an echo of the arguments made before the Iraq war, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers said one of the reasons for taking action is that Gadhafi's possesses stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

"'There are weapons of mass destruction there,' Rogers said. 'They have a very large stockpile of chemical weapons and it is believed they may still have stockpiles of some biological weapons.'."
See House Intel Chairman: No-Fly Zone "Absolutely the Right Thing to Do"

If what Representative Rogers is saying is correct, then the case for US intervention in Libya is in actuality GREATER than it turned out to be in the case of Iraq, an intervention that was predicated on Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons that in fact he did not possess.

Your assertion vis a vie Iraq is untrue. We know Sadam had WMD's, the question was never "did he have them", the question is "where are they". There is evedence that the weapons may have been trucked into Syria before military action comenced, there have been some chemical weapons found, though they are not either the ones we were looking for nor in the anounts we were looking for. There is also p0lenty of evedence that if Sadam survived the efforts to strip him of them, he would once again begin to aquire them. He had lots of stuff he wasn't supposed to have, just not the stuff we were looking for at the time we were looking for it. That said, WMD's was only one of about 14 reasons we invaded Iraq. To claim WMD's as the sole justification is disingenuous at best.

YEAH? Show us a link, other than a Republican hack site.

 

[Samson]

I hope its not too little too late

Why?

WTF unique government action has Gaddaffi taken in the past decade to suddenly make him our #1 enemy.

 

[Trajan]

I hope its not too little too late

Why?

WTF unique government action has Gaddaffi taken in the past decade to suddenly make him our #1 enemy.

yup....its been exactly the opposite. As I noted earlier, soft-hard power rope a dope. we'd been better off just shutting the eff up and letting events take their course. NOW that we have let the french et al push us to take stance , made worse by the reticence he expressed by his mess of responses, we are screwed.

IF the rebels win they will not see us as the driving force and will remember we once again, flip flopped and waited till the very lasts second and let events take us down the road, as we have firmly committed to not doing what would really end this stright away.
They won't have much long lasting gratitude which has a short half life anyway. IF they lose and Qaddafi wins well, he now has a hard on for us again.

Swift sure, overwhelming action at the beginning would have gotten rid of Qaddafi and had the rebels firmly placed in a position where they would have owed us at the very least goodwill and a seat at the table as to how they went forward, ie.e infleucne.

No action and the same attitude ala Yemen would have left Qaddafi to do what he had to do with no blow back in his mind necessary as we stayed out of it...what we did however was blow ourselves up from both ends.....


Thats not easy and it takes a foreign policy that is totally reactionary, based on wishful thinking ( and self willed ideology) and what more denial of reality, ala the world doesn't look to us, they do and obama wants to change the paradigm as he said so in Cairo way back and other remarks ala exceptional etc.

Hes doing it as we speak, and its an ignorance of geo-politics that get us here and we have not even seen what will happen in Bahrain and Yemen either, those countries situations right now, lay out by its stark contrast, to our actions in Libya, the lack of a coherent FP.....

 

[docmauser1]

WTF unique government action has Gaddaffi taken in the past decade to suddenly make him our #1 enemy.

The Chump 'n Chief sez so. Cue the Spangled ....

 

[JimH52]

Quakdaffy is calling for UN observers, but by the time they get there, everyone but his loyalist may be dead. This guy is going to play the UN resolution like a fiddle.

Rolling Obama isn't hard, the mans a naive narcisistic idiot.

and W was a genius, right?

 

[Trajan]

Quakdaffy is calling for UN observers, but by the time they get there, everyone but his loyalist may be dead. This guy is going to play the UN resolution like a fiddle.

Rolling Obama isn't hard, the mans a naive narcisistic idiot.

and W was a genius, right?

no he wasn't, and we are speaking of obama now, its been 2 years, his 'stamp' is on his FP...


.but to be fair, bush may have totally screwed the geo-political balance in the ME ala removing a hostile bulwark to Iran, its to soon to tell, but, its looking iffy right now.

 

[BenNatuf]

I read something this morning that was a real "bombshell", as they say:

"In an echo of the arguments made before the Iraq war, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers said one of the reasons for taking action is that Gadhafi's possesses stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

"'There are weapons of mass destruction there,' Rogers said. 'They have a very large stockpile of chemical weapons and it is believed they may still have stockpiles of some biological weapons.'."
See House Intel Chairman: No-Fly Zone "Absolutely the Right Thing to Do"

If what Representative Rogers is saying is correct, then the case for US intervention in Libya is in actuality GREATER than it turned out to be in the case of Iraq, an intervention that was predicated on Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons that in fact he did not possess.

Your assertion vis a vie Iraq is untrue. We know Sadam had WMD's, the question was never "did he have them", the question is "where are they". There is evedence that the weapons may have been trucked into Syria before military action comenced, there have been some chemical weapons found, though they are not either the ones we were looking for nor in the anounts we were looking for. There is also p0lenty of evedence that if Sadam survived the efforts to strip him of them, he would once again begin to aquire them. He had lots of stuff he wasn't supposed to have, just not the stuff we were looking for at the time we were looking for it. That said, WMD's was only one of about 14 reasons we invaded Iraq. To claim WMD's as the sole justification is disingenuous at best.

YEAH? Show us a link, other than a Republican hack site.

Those events were covered many years ago.

They did find at least one centrifuge burried at one of sadams palaces.

They did find mustard gas, which he was banned from having.

They did find a few (not many) chemical artillery shells burried with other shells which he was supposed to turn in, but apparently didn't.

They did find dual use technology and equipment he was banned from having.

They do have the satelite pictures of the convoys of trucks moving into Syria before hostilities started.

How about the declassified section of the report from the DNI in 2006? Will that do?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

 

[JimH52]

I think everyone can see that the US is now acting with UN resolutions and not unilaterally. Obama has handled this well. Oh, and we won't be paying a Trillion dollars to look for WMD that are not there.