Political & Elections

Ghaddafi's son was taken out by a Libyan pilot on a suicide mission, or so it has been reported.  The pilot supposedly crashed the jet into the combat command.

We can all play ignorant, but it is for oil. The fact is oil is a global issue. We can all complain about 4 bucks a gallon, in a recession, however, the UK and France are paying close to 10. We are not leading here, we are supporting our Allies. France and the UK are the ones that dragged us into this. We are there for the global political allies.

I may be naive, but I do believe Obama is going to pull us back as soon as he can. The reason I say this is because I believe Obama wants to be re-elected, he can't afford to keep us there for an extended period of time 18 months out from re-election. He will do everything to save his hide. That means getting in an out quickly with no loss of American lives.

I bet this a.m. he was sweating bullets due to the crash of the Strike Eagle. He was already being attacked by both sides...going in (left), waiting too long (right). Thankfully the pilot and wso were rescued, because doing a news conference in SA discussing the loss of 2 AF officers over the no-fly zone while he danced with kids in Chile and Rio would politically damage him.

Hats off to the left. They beat Bush up for the Iraq invasion and they are showing that the initial D or R doesn't matter. They will call either side just as quick.

As a wife who was married to an F15E WSO for 13+ yrs...THANK YOU MARINES, THANK YOU for rescuing our AF.



-- Edited by pima on Tuesday 22nd of March 2011 09:04:19 AM

Actually, no one is a direct threat to us. We're the most powerful military the world has ever seen, among droopy eyed armless children (if I may borrow Sheen's term :P), and yet we still feel the need to invade every country that looks at us the wrong way. I guess power can make you a bit paranoid.



President Obama has placed the UN over the US Constitution.

He has to be impeached and removed from office or every man and woman in the Congress has violated their oath of office.

Lol. The sad thing is, our congressman would be doing the same thing I'm doing if you told them that - laughing out loud.

You know, this is the use of US armed forces to attack the territory of a soverign foreign country.

The only legal figleaf has been a UN resolution.
President O. did not even ask Congress for a declaration of war per the US Constitution.

President Obama has placed the UN over the US Constitution.

He has to be impeached and removed from office or every man and woman in the Congress has violated their oath of office.

yes I'm sure it was accidental Razor... lol.

Was it the same son that plagiarized his PhD work in the UK?

One of the strikes took out one of Gaddafi's sons.

And yet all their ancestors reproduced.

Spontaneous mutation?

Politics makes strange bedfellows...

Liberal Democrats are now criticizing the President. What has the world come to when I am now agreeing with liberal Democrats? I have to give Dennis Kucinich credit. At least he is consistent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

Just typical. So many of those countries just want to complain and criticize (did they really think there wouldn't be civilian deaths when you're dropping bombs)? They want everyone else to do the heavy lifting, in their neck of the world, but they don't want to lift a finger to take any physical or financial responsibility. Wait and see, they're going to start whining about western imperialism and arrogance soon enough.

From Wednesday: Europeans completely puzzled on the US stance regarding Libya http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libya

-------------
Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.
-------------

I never thought I would actually agree with a nut job like Louis Farrakan, but I do.

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html

Is it possible that we could have an extremely limited role in this, just another one of a coalition, sending in a couple of cruise missles here and there? Or is it more likely that we'll get stuck with the bill, the responsibility, the sacrifice in blood and cash....begging others to come on and chip in a little more? I, for one, am sick of us paying the costs, particularly when we aren't even sure of what the outcome could be or if it would be positive for us. Why the crap aren't the Middle Eastern countries taking more of an active role instead of just urging others to do things? Or maybe I need to turn on the news and see the Saudis flying those new fighters over Libya, protecting the civilians (yeah right).

Call me cynical, but this just could be such an ugly quagmire. And for this statement, "I'm trying really hard to think in terms of realpolitik and all I can come up with is: helping or staying out of the way of Quadaffi earns the US nothing other than the gratitude of somone we should be trying to kill, while the contrary earns us the uncertain gratitude of US haters that will simply cut lucrative deals with the French and Brits"----I think you got that right. It seems like lose/lose, no matter what we do. I hope that is wrong!

I have come to believe our leadership, both political and business, liberal and conservative, are actually quite intelligent but are no longer on the "side of the American people".

catahoula wrote:

---

Besides being cheaper, a cruise missle would avoid the meaningless smooches.

---

True.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/obama-outlines-limited-u-s-role-in-libya

I found this and it makes me feel better.

I don't know who is pushing for boots on the ground.  I heard the rebels were complaining that a no fly zone would have been okay two weeks ago, but now they would need more.  I thought, seriously?  You cannot really be asking us for this when you hate us.  But, yeah, okay. 

If they want boots on the ground and it has to do with big oil in Lybia?  the boots had better be british. 

If we put boots on the ground in Lybia?  I will be the one you read about in the news whose head has completely exploded.  You will know my identity.  "Woman's Head Explodes in Chicago, Cause Unknown." 

It's hard to argue with those who feel that no matter who ends up in charge, the country is still going to suck. Not to mention the costs in trying to determine specifically which Western-hating rabble-rouser ends up on the top of the heap.

OTOH, Quadaffi has enough American blood on his hands that I can't see why we can't take a little bit of Reagan and little more of Clinton and do him up both right and on the cheap.

As far as I'm concerned he's been living on borrowed time ever since Ronnie Ray-Gun missed him with that airstrike and Clinton proved, with that cruise missile on the Chinese consulate in Belgrade?, that we could always just explain it away as a bad GPS coordinate, an old map, whatever.

"I think maybe the French and English are going to do the manned missions."

Uh huh. Do they actually have men left in France and England?

it looks like Qaddafi says he has stopped military operations. He is probably lying. Even if he has stopped using his Air Force, he will send his troops in on the ground to kill everyone who opposes them. The conflict will simply last longer. I just hope we do not have to read about American service member dying over there.

I am so annoyed that we are doing this.

We should not be sending our pilots on missions like this because of the will of other countries.  We are not some world police force.  When our own generals think it is a bad idea, we should not do it.

Plus, I can't stand the countries who we are doing this for, the exact same ones who finance schools of "hate the US," right down to France, who would not support us for one second if it wasn't "about" their national interest.  Unbelievable.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Thursday 17th of March 2011 08:43:02 PM

We have no business in that war. It is another mistake. We will help depose a dictator which leads to the installation of another iranian style theocracy which hates us and israel.

Do you really believe the US should be the one enforcing a no-fly zone over Lybia, anyway?  No.

We need to do what China has done.  Pull back, defend our own borders and rebuild our country.  No more free police force.

In our town, if the ambulance has to come get you, you have to pay.  It's lose-lose for us to go in and "help" in mideast.  Let them manage their own world and drill oil here.

This looks like an excellent opportunity for France and other interested parties to step up and do the right thing, the responsible thing.

If it looks like its working, there's a good chance we might get involved.