Liberal America is now put to the test

Originally posted by links234
This isn't a war though.

Neither was Operation Iraqi Freedom technically. And I supposed 112 cruise missiles launched to destory defenses that also cause civilian deaths is not 'war.'

I see no soldiers landing on the beaches of Libya.

Yet. This is just d-day.

There are a LOT of things that seperate what happened in Libya yesterday with what happened in Iraq 8 years ago; primarily the overwhelming support of the international community.

The invasion of Iraq had overwhelming international support as well, including the support of all arab nations but Iran.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Vizzle

 

I am deceptive in my tactics...you'll note I never said we weren't involved, but those tomahawks went in after a French warplane blew up a Libyan military vehicle.

Right, so lobbing over 100 missiles in to a foreign country is a peaceful solution. Sounds pretty warlike to me, unless those missiles were really carrying flowers, or my little pony.

Let me make one thing crystal yapping clear here and that is that for the next couple of weeks at most will the US be involved with this conflict and will let The UK, France, Germany and England take over.

This is the plan as we clearly cannot get into a third conflict in this short of a time frame.

No one is being tested ok?

I just seen on the news the White House ordered the arrest of about 100(?) protesters from outside the gates. Kinda strange if you think about it, Obama launches assault against Qaddafi for attacking protesters/rebels yet here at home he arrests protesters against war. Sure I know it is like comparing apples and oranges but it is still a little ironic.

This 'intervention' can be called 'legal' because the criminals in the UN, Arab League, Britain, and France wanted the offensive as well, I am sorry but that does not make it right. Libya is a sovereign state, Qaddafi is the head of the Libyan state, and the rebels need to fight their own battle or just simply the US stay out of it. We have no legal right to perform this intervention and sorry to the interventionists but the UN giving us the green light does not equal us having the legal right. Pres. Obama did not even get authorization from the United States Congress, like his predecessor he believes he is above the legislative branch and unfortunately we have such cowardly and hawkish people in our legislature they would never dare to call him out on it, which they could and should do.

Where in the Constitution were we authorized the right to intervene militarily without Congressional approval and where it was not a direct threat to our own citizens or our own sovereignty. Let the Europeans figure this out if they want to be the war hawk, it's their money and their soldiers.

Originally posted by Misoir
I just seen on the news the White House ordered the arrest of about 100(?) protesters from outside the gates. Kinda strange if you think about it, Obama launches assault against Qaddafi for attacking protesters/rebels yet here at home he arrests protesters against war. Sure I know it is like comparing apples and oranges but it is still a little ironic.

This 'intervention' can be called 'legal' because the criminals in the UN, Arab League, Britain, and France wanted the offensive as well, I am sorry but that does not make it right. Libya is a sovereign state, Qaddafi is the head of the Libyan state, and the rebels need to fight their own battle or just simply the US stay out of it. We have no legal right to perform this intervention and sorry to the interventionists but the UN giving us the green light does not equal us having the legal right. Pres. Obama did not even get authorization from the United States Congress, like his predecessor he believes he is above the legislative branch and unfortunately we have such cowardly and hawkish people in our legislature they would never dare to call him out on it, which they could and should do.

Where in the Constitution were we authorized the right to intervene militarily without Congressional approval and where it was not a direct threat to our own citizens or our own sovereignty. Let the Europeans figure this out if they want to be the war hawk, it's their money and their soldiers.

Ask your boy 43 the same q when he invaded Iraq without Congressional approval and it took the Congress 2 or 3 days to approve the conflict so do not even dare to go there.

As I stated in the post prior to yours that The US will be apart of the Initial Assault Squad but our role will be extrememly small and be primairily tech support and logistics. England, Germany, France and Italy are in charge here. We are simply advisors. Our people over there now advising are working under the banner of The European Union for which The US is an ally and while they are being "borrowed" they are not under US order and declared an international force with no particular home nation. The UN's militarial arm does not require the permission of either the Parliment or Congress of any of it's member nations to engage a direct threat to the planet itself.

Originally posted by beezzer
I can already hear the
*cricket*
*cricket*
*cricket*
on the left. This is Obamas' War.

Also a brilliant thread! S+F for illustating the blatent hypocracy that lives in the left.

I'm on the left and am not in favor of the airstrikes, there you go I will say it. It shows up the total double standards that exist within western foreign policy. Take operation cast lead in Israel. Palestinians were being bombed, with no defense from Israeli jets, Yet where were the complaints from the west or call for no fly zones?

Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi have all shot and killed protestors......Where's the "No fly Zone"?

Next , Who are the rebels? who in fact are we arming and supporting here? It seems no one actually knows and
If regime change is not the goal of this intervention, how do they intend to get rid of Gadaffi.

Finally, this is about Western interests, not the human rights of the Libyan people. Im sure Tony Blair was well aware of the human rights issues in Libya when he was giving him a hug and kiss.

Final point. When this is all over, Libya like Iraq and Afghanistan will all have new governments brought to them on the back of western military intervention and will never have the chance to call it their own, like in Egypt Tiunisia.

The new government will lack legitimacy like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we are probably building up more problems than we think we are trying to solve.

We shall see


One final point. It seems Ironic that one week the protestors are being shot at with British made tear gas, the next week British planes are bombing the other side.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


So I call out Obama's illegal actions and immediately I must be a supporter of George W. Bush and his actions? Talk about only seeing black and white, get a clue.

The UN has no authority over this country, no authority appropriated to it in the United States Constitution, and the Congress has the say in all military actions NOT the President, not NATO, and not the UN. Criminals think they can walk into government and trick the masses into believing they wield the power and final say, well they damn sure do not, and the sooner people awake to this fact the sooner we can get our house back in order.

You want to be a supporter of the international cabal of criminals who hide inside the halls of international organizations? Good go to your beloved criminals, wrap your arms around them, but unlike you internationalists who support war and illegal actions I shall remain loyal to the real laws and the real authorities not some supranational organization run by criminal bankers and businessmen for their own benefit at the expense of myself and my country.

Just saw this comment on another site and it pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

It will end with a puppet, just as Afghanistan ended with a puppet, Iraq ended with a puppet and even Iran in the 1950s ended with a puppet.
They will install said puppet and he will offer extraordinarily generous rates to the British, French and American oil companies who wish to work in Libya, in return for a cut for himself.
And they will call it democracy.

www.guardian.co.uk...-of-comments

As I have said and maintained throughout this Libya crisis, I believe it's up to the people of Libya to determine their own destany.

The hypocrisy has been from the right who wanted this no fly zone until Obama agreed with the no fly zone.



hmm, the right wanted a no fly zone TWO WEEKS AGO!

reply to post by Wolf321


So very true, I knew there would be NO change with Obama. Watching the gov here in Canada, and in the USA, I don't think it matters what party gets voted in anymore, Corporations have taken control of our respective governments, and it's time to take back control.

Originally posted by links234
This isn't a war though.

Nah, its not a war. I'm sure you'd see it that same way if Libya decided to launch a few hundred cruise missiles against targets within your country's borders.

It's not a war...France struck first...Gadaffi is evil...the UN approves...
Hmm.

Read Legacy of Ashes. After this puppet dictator is taken down another puppet dictator &/or cabinet more subservient to the globalists will take his place. The NWO is rolling full steam ahead & some of us justify and applaud it?
Madness I say! Madness!

Originally posted by Wolf321
And Saddam violated the UN terms that ended the gulf war so we had every right to go in any time we wanted.

This is incorrect. Military force can only be used, unless in cases of self-defense, after a Security Council determination, as per Article 39 of the United Nations Charter—

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The United Nations didn’t adopt any resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq in 2003. Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted in 2002, didn’t permit the use of military force, and this was even explicitly acknowledged by the American delegation to the UN. John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN (source)—

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Further evidence that Resolution 1441 didn’t, in itself, authorize the use of force is the fact that the US, UK and Spain, in 2003, introduced a draft resolution seeking authorization to use military force against Iraq. When it was clear the resolution wouldn’t be adopted because it lacked the necessary votes, it was withdrawn.

The US-led military action against Iraq in 2003 was not in accordance with international law, contrary to the recent action taken against the Libyan regime.

Originally posted by Vizzle
Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.

That goes to prove the ridiculousness, of the UN. Oh, the games people play.

If they, truly, didn't support the action, they should have actually taken a stand and voted against it. All this did was give them the opportunity to, once again, point fingers at the US, and turn even more worldwide public opinion against the US.

When are we going to learn? Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US. What are they going to do without our money?

Originally posted by Wolf321
Today begins a test of for all liberal Americans. When George Bush authorized military actions to take out Saddam, the left began their anti-war cry. It was the central tenet of Bush hate speech for the remainder of his time in office. Then Senator Obama was as vocal against Bush and his 'illegal' war.

When Obama came into office, he ultimately did get a reduction in forces in Iraq, with only slight grumblings from the left.

Today, President Obama launches his own illegal war. At this point, the media, under its usual influence, is careful to call the whole ordeal a European led attack, and that coupled with the Presidents claim to not send in ground forces, is the way he will try to both involve and distance himself at the same time.

If the liberals in the US don't stand up and raise just as much hell about this if not more than they did with Bush, then we will all see square in the eyes, the hypocrisy that much of the world accuses America of.

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'

Coincidentally, the dates are the same, much like the words...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'

and the beat goes on.

I voted for Obama, and I sure didn't expect something like this. Yeah, what's the real difference? Basically nothing. I'm very unhappy at this turn of events in Libya, and those two presidential quotes are virtually indistinguishable from one another. I'm against this effort and wonder how our government has been taken over by global corporate interests and no longer reflects the will of its people. I will be back out there demonstrating again if this turns into another extended and expensive committment we can't afford.

can we stop with this whole right vs left thing?

i mean seriously does it make a difference? if it's a good idea, then its a good idea, if not then it's not. it has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

i'm liberal about some things, and im conservative about other things. op, your the one drawing a line, your the one building the wall, if you're completely conservative about everything, there's something wrong with you, likewise id you're liberal about everything. drop the labels, drop the name calling, you're not helping in anyway.

reply to post by Wolf321


Big difference Wolf?

Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to. It was completely unnecessary. Same with Afghanistan; the Taliban had agreed to hand Osama over to a third party (probably Pakistan or Iran) but Bush wasn't having any of it. Neither war served any purpose other than generating dead Muslims and then trying to sell their countries to Bechtel and Halliburton.

US participation in Libya however, is done to protect a population of people from a crazy dude who really is out to exterminate them. People who's crime is trying to overthrow a dictator. Now, only time will tell if it keeps the "vision" (I'm guessing Qadafi will fold before the month is out, so I'm extending a "maybe") but if I have to choose between the US military being used to massacre civilians as in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen, or to protect them, as is going to be the case in Libya, I know which way I'll lean.

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Vizzle
Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.

That goes to prove the ridiculousness, of the UN. Oh, the games people play.

If they, truly, didn't support the action, they should have actually taken a stand and voted against it. All this did was give them the opportunity to, once again, point fingers at the US, and turn even more worldwide public opinion against the US.

The only vote that would have mattered is China. And China abstains on pretty much everything that doesn't impact China. Germany did not want to be pulled into another middle east conflict. Brazil has a tendency towards supporting "pariah" nations, it's their weird sort of way of building an "underdog coalition." India usually keeps its nose out of anything having to do with military action that doesn't involve India, and Russia.. .yeah you actually have Russia pegged. But really, the fact is, most countries don't care about us, certainly not enough to make their votes in the UN depend on how much it annoys some Americans.

When are we going to learn? Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US. What are they going to do without our money?

Use Russia and China's money. You... ARE aware that pretty much every iota of power the US has in the world is dependent on our position in the UN, right? Now personally I don't mind if the US isn't "top dog" in the world, but I think you might start, once our military bases are getting bulldozed, our trade agreements fall apart, and our 51st state on the East Mediterranean no longer has us vetoing everything.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

So I call out Obama's illegal actions and immediately I must be a supporter of George W. Bush and his actions? Talk about only seeing black and white, get a clue.

Don't you just love it how the liberals are use G. W. Bush as a measure for Obama's actions? I guess they really do feel Bush was correct in his actions after all.

reply to post by Vizzle


In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, using the bombing of the La Belle discotheque as a pretext, launched Operation el Dorado Canyon. In this operation, 45 American bombers dropped ~300 bombs and fired 48 missiles into Libya.

Just thought you might like to know.