Author Topic: The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us (Read 55061 times)

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #150 on:** March 22, 2011, 04:14:56 PM »

Quote from: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 22, 2011, 04:03:54 PM

Related to topic:
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=

It's funny to see all these people treating Obama like they did Bush. I wonder what DU's saying about this.

Maybe we can all find some common ground out of all this. Like: "Let's not spend American lives and American ~~gold~~ FRN on pacifying 3rd world hellholes that have chosen to be 3rd world hellholes for the last 100 years."

roo_ster · « **Reply #151 on:** March 22, 2011, 05:20:52 PM »

Don't forget the opportunity cost.

While we're making the world safe for anti-Gadafi-tribal cretins, we are not supporting dissident groups in countries that are a much greater threat to the USA, like those in Iran or in Syria, which has also chosen to kill some of its protesters, recently.

De Selby · « **Reply #152 on:** March 22, 2011, 08:08:04 PM »

The saudis and the other gulf states have contributed more to Islamic terrorism than any other states in the world - we should be cheering those protestors instead of letting the medieval clerics put them down.

The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #153 on:** March 22, 2011, 08:31:37 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on March 22, 2011, 08:08:04 PM

The saudis and the other gulf states have contributed more to Islamic terrorism than any other states in the world - we should be cheering those protestors instead of letting the medieval clerics put them down.
The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?

I think hell might have frozen over. Can someone check?

I find myself in complete agreement with De SS.
Most important parts highlighted.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #154 on:** March 22, 2011, 09:35:19 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on March 22, 2011, 08:08:04 PM

The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?

I think you're exactly right. Obama doesn't seem to know what he's doing or why. Truly, I doubt he knows why he gave the order. Because Hillary made him? To protect innocent civilians? Spread democracy? Because the UN voted unanimously to do it and he thinks he has to go along?

I fully support giving Ghaddafi a dirt nap. I think this is the best chance we're going to have to make that happen and we ought to seize it. That said, I always assumed we'd have competent leadership acting concertedly towards that end. All we have now is a dithering idiot ordering airplanes around and acting confused. If Obama doesn't get his *expletive deleted* squared away fast, then we're going to end up doing more harm than good here.

I'm surprised the senior military leadership is standing for this. Yeah, the Generals have to follow POTUS's orders, but they still should have considerable influence and clout within the White House. I can't imagine them getting behind this clusterbleep.

Does anyone remember, back during the Presidential campaigns, the bit about the 3:00am phone call and who you'd want to be sleeping in the White House to answer it? This right here is why we didn't want it to be Obama.

RocketMan · « **Reply #155 on:** March 22, 2011, 09:55:37 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on March 22, 2011, 08:25:47 AM

*shrug* Anyone wanna tally the numbers for what it cost to go pick the crew up, properly "thanking" the rebels (hey, I'm not above monetary reward if a semi-friendly faction rescues and returns our people for us)...

We thanked those rebels by shooting six of them, including a young boy who may lose a leg due to his wounds.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #156 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:13:42 PM »

Interesting that O is more interested in the U.N.'s guidance than in Congressional approval.

RocketMan · « **Reply #157 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:18:32 PM »

Quote from: Fistful on March 22, 2011, 10:13:42 PM

Interesting that O is more interested in the U.N.'s guidance than in Congressional approval.

Can you say, "Community Organizer"?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #158 on:** March 22, 2011, 10:34:48 PM »

Quote from: RocketMan on March 22, 2011, 09:55:37 PM

We thanked those rebels by shooting six of them, including a young boy who may lose a leg due to his wounds.

Are you saying that we should never wage war lest a friendly-fire incident occur?

Are you saying the rebels would be better off if America wasn't there?

RocketMan · « **Reply #159 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:31:38 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on March 22, 2011, 10:34:48 PM

Are you saying that we should never wage war lest a friendly-fire incident occur?
Are you saying the rebels would be better off if America wasn't there?

It's was just meant as an interesting counterpoint to kgbs statement. The US rescuers did indeed shoot six Libyans that had gone to assist the downed airmen. This sort of thing has always happened in war, it always will, and it is damned unfortunate.
And no, I am not entirely convinced we should be there. Quackdaffy has been pretty well contained for the last decade or so. He is a nasty individual, busy raping Libya and its people, and that is truely unfortunate. But he poses no real threat to the US. Libya's problems are none of our concern.

De Selby · « **Reply #160 on:** March 23, 2011, 02:41:24 AM »

I think Obama has a plan, but thinks it's clever to pretend he's just following a limited international coalition.

It isn't. Pretending there's no real war won't work. What he should have are clear goals and a lightning fast delivery.

roo_ster · « **Reply #161 on:** March 23, 2011, 07:37:30 AM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 22, 2011, 08:31:37 PM

I think hell might have frozen over. Can someone check?

I find myself in complete agreement with De SS.
Most important parts highlighted.

Dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!

mtnbkr · « **Reply #162 on:** March 23, 2011, 08:02:16 AM »

Quote from: roo_ster on March 23, 2011, 07:37:30 AM

Dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!

Thank you Dr. Venkman.

Chris

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #163 on:** March 23, 2011, 08:50:08 AM »

Obama hasn't slowed down, and is using snipers to target rebels in one of the towns. Yesterday, one of our military commanders said that all military options were on the table.
I'm starting a pool. Any bets on how long until we're on the ground there?

Fitz · « **Reply #164 on:** March 23, 2011, 09:14:05 AM »

Freudian slip?

MillCreek · « **Reply #165 on:** March 23, 2011, 10:23:59 AM »

There is an article in today's WSJ about the F-15 crash and personnel recovery. I was interested to see that this was a TRAP mission by the Marines off the USS Kearsarge. And the interesting thing, to me, was the use of two CH-53's as top cover (along with two Harriers), but the actual landing and recovery was by one of two MV-22 Ospreys. It is nice to see the Osprey being used operationally for this sort of tactical mission.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #166 on:** March 23, 2011, 10:45:20 AM »

53's as top cover? That's kind of....odd...maybe they had more troops on board as back up....but 53's are lightly armed at best....

roo_ster · « **Reply #167 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:20:49 AM »

Lemme help you with that..

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 23, 2011, 10:45:20 AM

53's as top cover? That's kind of....odd...maybe they had more troops on board as back up....but 53's are lightly armed and huge honking targets at best....

CSM Kersh · « **Reply #168 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:42:56 AM »

So much for no boots on the ground if this is correct

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

Quote

We've seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people

longeyes · « **Reply #169 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:53:34 AM »

Not to worry: we've got the USMC in there now, fighting to protect Al-Q and the M. Bro'hood.

All is going according to plan on Penn. Ave.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #170 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:42:44 PM »

Quote from: CSM Kersh on March 23, 2011, 11:42:56 AM

So much for no boots on the ground if this is correct

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

A MEU isn't just grunts. The article states that the MEU's harriers were part of strikes against Lybian assets.

(that said, I predict boots on the ground by the end of April)

roo_ster · « **Reply #171 on:** March 27, 2011, 09:31:00 AM »

Since it is a NATO operation and the commander of NATO is presently a Canuck...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263106/libya-blame-canada-daniel-foster

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263122/re-libya-blame-canada-mark-steyn

"...re: General Bouchard, our new Supreme Allied Commander of Kinetic Scope-Limited Action, as much as I like the idea of Canadian military commanders randomly invading Muslim nations, I feel the gig should have gone to a Mexican general. After all, the Administration pretty much insisted this is a job Americans won’t do."

One of the comments:
"A Mexican general? So you want to go from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli?"

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #172 on:** March 27, 2011, 09:39:28 AM »

Quote from: longeyes on March 23, 2011, 11:53:34 AM

Not to worry: we've got the USMC in there now, fighting to protect Al-Q and the M. Bro'hood.

All is going according to plan on Penn. Ave.

Again, the presence of a MEU isn't boots on the ground. A MEU has enough air power to take over France.

De Selby · « **Reply #173 on:** March 27, 2011, 09:59:58 AM »

The leadership fail continues. To date, no clear statement of the desired outcome, and no clear policy on democracy in Arab countries.

I think the vagaries around Libya are a not-so-clever attempt to avoid displaying obvious hypocrisy towards protestors in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco (all US allies.) All that's being accomplished is for the public to be left hanging, for Quackduffy (I like it) to continue working to destroy the revolution with his cronies, and for the rest of the Arab world to get more and more enraged with US support for their own dictators.

roo_ster · « **Reply #174 on:** March 27, 2011, 10:11:10 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on March 27, 2011, 09:59:58 AM

The leadership fail continues. To date, no clear statement of the desired outcome, and no clear policy on democracy in Arab countries.

See, Obama does know how to unite people coming from almost completely different points of view!

News:

Author Topic: The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us (Read 55061 times)