Obama signals willingness to arm Libyan rebels

Obama signals willingness to arm Libyan rebels

www.cnn.com

(CNN) -- On a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.
"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The source has video as well.

In my opinion, when a politician says they aren't ruling it out or in... it probably means they're ruling it in, and we're not going to hear about it til after the fact.

Yeah, I think this thing really may turn into a bigger event.
Maybe this is what Obama will use to fuel his re-election...

agree? disagree?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

10 years these weapons will be used against us.
last thing we need to do is throw more ammo in the fire.

reply to post by gougitousakusha


you think so?

I don't think they will be effective in 10 years. When they say arming rebels, I imagine with AKs and M-16s, maybe some rocket launchers?

If an organization wanted to infiltrate the US, they would have a better chance at buying arms inside the US rather than bringing them in, and in 10 years our firepower is going to be scary.

Maybe I can see them targeting US outposts overseas, but I dunno, I never really considered that aspect of things.

My biggest concern is that the nations against this war already will retaliate against the US for further encouraging it and for picking sides, essentially, starting WW3.

I believe Iran is already against it, and many other nations in the UN are calling this event unjust

Call me paranoid, but I am pretty sure we were already arming them, through certain letter agencies to get the "rebellion" kicked off in the first place.

If U.S. is going to spend money to arm the rebels, we might as well just spend the money to drop bombs and keep weapons out of the hands of a foreign nation.

reply to post by Odessy


1,000 ‘freelance jihadists’ in Libya raising concerns

So now our President is in direct material support of terrorists. That is not acceptably. Impeach

This is going to get worse, adding more weapons to the problems is just so great. And as one poster put, I agree your right these weapons will be used against the ones that provided them. Can't help but lose more faith in those that suppose to be leaders. Also makes one even more mistrusting of these politicians. It's almost like they want to make more war rather than stop war.
When and where will it end.

reply to post by Odessy


Why's Obama even talking like that??
Didn't they just hand command over to NATO??
So isn't it up to NATO to decide these things?

The US just can't help but butt in, even after saying they're butting out..

What I don't get...

Why is the UN allowing the rebels to even attack back? Isn't the goal of the UN, peacekeeping? Why are they endorsing the violent overthrowing of Gadhafi, rather then settle it like the UN is designed to settle things?

Whatever, it really doesn't matter what I say. The UN, USA, British, and French have their agendas. Not like I could do anything. I'm merely a peasant, and they are the kings of the world...No pun intended.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Odessy

 

Why's Obama even talking like that??
Didn't they just hand command over to NATO??
So isn't it up to NATO to decide these things?

The US just can't help but butt in, even after saying they're butting out..

All it is is lies on top of more lies. There is no end to it.

reply to post by TKDRL


Well didnt France send in troops?
But your right, it wouldn't be the first time.

If you guys remember, we helped Castro and the rebels overthrow the govt. in Cuba, and once Fidel was established as the new leader, he didn't agree to what the US was telling him to do with his country.
Fair enough in my opinion. The US thought they owned him, and the rebels just used the US for their own cause. I probably would do the same.

So yeah, I think Cuba is a good precedent to this conflict. Its not the first time we've helped rebels overthrow a govt.

reply to post by Odessy

So yeah, I think Cuba is a good precedent to this conflict. Its not the first time we've helped rebels overthrow a govt.

Same with the Taliban..
Will the US ever learn?

Or more to the point, will the people ever wake up to the scam of perpetual war ??

reply to post by backinblack


I mean, on its own is one thing, but theres just sooo much evidence to support the corruption of this govt its really remarkable how many people still trust it. Once you get the seed planted though, not only can you start to see the govt for what it is now, but you can start looking at past events, such as 911, the taliban, iraq, iran, cuba, vietnam, the cold war, even the world wars where these people obviously made all their money by supplying both sides of the war, and waiting half way through to actually participate. Everything.
Jefferson said a govt can only last some 200+ years, that time has come. I can't trust the current system, therefore, I don't give it authority. We need a clean slate. I just wish there was a way to do without hurting ourselves.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Odessy

 

Why's Obama even talking like that??
Didn't they just hand command over to NATO??
So isn't it up to NATO to decide these things?

The US just can't help but butt in, even after saying they're butting out..

The Supreme Commander of NATO is an American officer.

NATO having command is still essentially the US commanding, look at Afghanistan.

I think the plan is Hilary Clinton will come out of this whole chaos in the middle east smelling like a rose and she's going to run for president and win, IMO. That could be their game plan.