U.S. General: Ground Troops to Invade Libya

U.S. General: Ground Troops to Invade Libya

www.infowars.com

Army General Carter Ham told Congress today that while sending a globalist ground invasion force including American troops into Libya may not be “ideal,” it is probably the only way to make sure the CIA organized rebels and al-Qaeda defeat Gaddafi and his troops.

Last month Obama said the U.S. would not send troops to Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates also ruled out the use of ground troops. Gates declared “as long as I’m in this job” troops will not be sent.

(visit the link for the full news article)


www.cbsnews.com...

Well thats all she wrote....this is not a obama bashing thread. This is to identify yet another massive invasion for ground troops that will bring more US military home in a body bag, and maybe even innocent Libyans as well?

Though I'm not surprised of this move by the Obamaites, just comes to show, when the puppet master moves, the puppet does~

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

www.cbsnews.com...

I seriously think all the presidents/ prime ministers and other dictators got there agenda already. We just get to get the mind games played as we sway to hatred of one side of the planet why those who deserve this aggression sit and play chess REAL CHESS with tea? Everyone else gets filled with hate major mass controll is set in and there you have it the rich get richer the others of EA fall to the side and try to understand why their leader of their location seems to do the oppisite of what they say they will. Its all conscious controll. I really feel Usama not Osama is alive he has 2 names you know and I dont think its by accident. What happens if the field soldiers on all sides begin to think for themselves

are they gonna pay these troops???
because well, as of now, the gov't seems to be destined to shut down tomorrow, and I keep reading that the these troops won't be paid!
ya, I guess if you are planning on not paying the people you've entrusted with the guns and bombs, it might be better to send them far, far away from you before you tell them.....I guess.....

reply to post by dawnstar


yeah, I think you may be right, wouldn't want any p.o'd soldiers out there!

See, there's your problem right there...

You are focussing on what was said last month; it might as well have been 100 years ago.

Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Truth...rinse & repeat.

Is this any real surprise?

Well isn't this just great news...Why don't we just go ahead and invade everyone and get it over with instead of wasting time doing it one country at a time. Obama is such a peaceful loving and trust worthy president.

Originally posted by [davinci]
See, there's your problem right there.

You are focussing on what was said last month, it might as well have been 100 years ago.

Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Truth...rinse & repeat.

edit on 7-4-2011 by [davinci] because: (no reason given)

Mind I ask what your talking about? Who is focusing on what last month? Do you have the ability to conjure up a constructive thought relevant to the topic, or is that to much to ask?

There's a difference between what Ham said and "Ground troops TO invade Libya." Ham said US ground troops are likely to be discussed if international troops do invade.

Not defending Obama or the war machine (my posting history fully vets my long standing position against the guy), but the headline of the article is sensationalized in the same manner as the vast majority of Alex Jones' news stories are.

As to the premise of the OP. Endless war was OK back when the US was building a middle class empire on it. Now days, with these war efforts granting wealth to multinational firms and built on the crushed bones of the US' middle class, hell no!

To the "will they pay the troops" comment, I'm extremely interested to see how that plays out. I see two potential outcomes if they stop paying soldier regularly.
1. Mass defection with a strong potential of armed uprising from our troops.
2. Mass casualities of US troops who are in the trenches worrying more about their wives & kids being able to afford food & rent than they are about the Jihadist sniper across the canyon. Distractions are not good in the middle of a firefight.
The fact that Congress, the president, and the TSA/Homeland security clowns will get their paychecks but our troops may have to sit and spin is simply disgusting. The fact that they are considering a marked uptick to a war while starring unpaid troops in the eyes is even more disgusting.

reply to post by Jeremiah Johnson



My thoughts exactly, but to stay point, I think its a bit sickening...just going from place to the next as the global police.

I think every one can understand that it is not Obama who is playing . The shadow government has got into action and writing the equations and boundary conditions.

I think we can't blame Obama for this. because he is not in the position of power.

Welcome to the new "quagmire."

As members of NATO I know we have an obligation to support the effort; but considering our position, it seems almost cruel to have assumed our nation would be willing to send our family members to yet another country to face death and hardship.

The Madison Avenue/Hollywood tactics used by the political party and the media to "motivate us" strike me as insulting and disingenuous to say the least.

I'm not sure if Obama's cabinet/czars, or whatever insulting titles he comes up with are lying to us... or just flat-out don't know what they are talking about.

Anyone with a brain knows that, unless your mission is to exterminate an entire population - you can't "win" without ground troops (if your goal is merely to exterminate, bombing the place to kingdom come is a viable strategy, unpopular as it may be).

As focused as Obama's administration has been on PR - I find it highly unlikely that they are merely telling us lies that they know will be thrown back at them come time for election. This leads me to two very disturbing conclusions - either they have no clue what they are talking about (what I consider to be the most likely), or are overly-certain of their influence on the mass media and thus put little value in their own words (likely a factor, if nothing else - they seem to be certain they can draw on "yes we can" again... and Bob the Builder is not all that popular anymore).

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I'm just going by the article that you posted.

Last month Obama said the U.S. would not send troops to Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates also ruled out the use of ground troops. Gates declared “as long as I’m in this job” troops will not be sent.

My mistake.

I don't see where either source says that troops are going to Libya... This General just seems to be speculating. But that's all you need for a non-Obama-bashing thread.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Yes the article states the General Ham stated that having ground troops would not be "ideal" , if one takes time to read between the lines, it rather inevitable. Hell, we already had CIA " troops" on the ground. Its inevitable I think~

We're stretching ourselves too thin, what are we going to do if China,Russia or North Korea take advantage of this and invade a neighbor? Then we will have a lot more serious problems to deal with.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Just to clarify, I didn't create the title of the article. I just put what was already established in article form on this thread. And my OP, stated that this wasnt obama bashing thread, and specifically identified possible troop movement.

reply to post by hmdphantom

I think we can't blame Obama for this. because he is not in the position of power.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Even entertaining your argument of some kind of shadow-government for a bit... you seem so convinced that such a "shadow government" would want a war with Libya and would want to see our nation in such a debt crisis.

What logical sense does that make? Certainly, a group that has risen to such power, nearly invisibly, would have some sense amongst them. The debt crisis is making people upset, adding to the turmoil and chaos. The more chaotic the system becomes, the more factors you have to bring under control in order to stay in command of that system. Everything that you are proposing is the work of a "shadow government" goes completely against the goals and objectives of such a government - which would value stability and predictability over chaos and uncertainty not directly engineered or under their complete control.

When grandma and farmer bob start appearing at local meetings and gun sales start going through the roof - this is evidence that the excitement is not engineered or under any one group's control.

So, at what point do we start to hold the President accountable for his actions?