Obama attacks Libya and starts a new war

[Brian4Liberty]

It's official now. We are at war with Libya. Following the precedent set by several US Presidents before him, President Barrack Obama has started a war with another country without authorization via a Declaration of War by the Congress of the United States.

Hope and change. :rolleyes:


Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/

[FrankRep]

Where are the anti-Bush War Protesters?

[karat32]

they dont turn up when france wants to lead

[tangent4ronpaul]

DUPLICATE THREAD! - yet again....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284079-First-tomahawks-fired....

[Dissident]

Where are the anti-Bush War Protesters?

They are rationalizing that Obama would end the wars if only he had the courage to stand up to the republicans.

[FrankRep]

They are rationalizing that Obama would end the wars if only he had the courage to stand up to the republicans.

Well, this is Obama's War. Can't blame the Republicans.

[Brian4Liberty]

Where are the anti-Bush War Protesters?

Well, Obama says "use of force" was not his first option, so it's ok now.

[123tim]

Stupid question I'm sure, but why are we attacking targets which might have the capacity to shoot down planes if what we're trying to do is establish a "no fly zone"?

Another stupid question....Where is France in this action?

[Brian4Liberty]

Stupid question I'm sure, but why are we attacking targets which might have the capacity to shoot down planes if what we're trying to do is establish a "no fly zone"?


Good question. It's because it's not really a "no fly zone". We have taken sides, and one side can still do whatever it wants (we'll probably provide them with more anti-aircraft weapons). It's just the enemy's (Gaddaffi's) planes and equipment that we are attacking. And of course we can fly in the "no fly" zone.

[123tim]

Good question. It's because it's not really a "no fly zone". We have taken sides, and one side can still do whatever it wants (we'll probably provide them with more anti-aircraft weapons). It's just the enemy's (Gaddaffi's) planes and equipment that we are attacking. And of course we can fly in the "no fly" zone.

Thank you for the answer. I guess then that this just the beginning of something much larger. (Pretty obvious to most people (except for me) I'm sure.)

[Aratus]

french jets have done airstrikes, several news services
confirm the launch of the 110+ (raytheon?) tomahawks.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interesting story. Could be nothing more than cover for Obama. They make it seem like it wasn't Obama's idea, and that Hillary made the call.

On the other hand, taking the story at face value, does a cruise missile fired by a woman result in a more gentle death for those killed? We always hear in regards to female candidates that "woman don't start wars"...


Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans,
...
The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. ...
Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Brian4Liberty]

Nancy Pelosi, the person who said she would get us out of the wars, supports the new war started today. (It's a humanitarian war, so all of the innocent people killed should take comfort in that nuance):


"I commend the President for his leadership and prudence on how our nation will proceed in regards to Libya and work in concert with European and Arab allies to address the crisis.

"The strong action taken by the United Nations and the Arab League should leave no doubt in Qaddafi's mind that the horrific brutality against his own people will not be tolerated and cannot continue."

http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2011/03/pelosi-statement-on-un-security-council-resolution-on-libya.shtml

[silentshout]

Where are the anti-Bush War Protesters?

Some of us never stopped protesting when Obama took the reins, but sadly, there aren't many left.

[South Park Fan]

Where are the anti-Bush War Protesters?

Most "progressives" seem to oppose war on procedural grounds rather than substantive grounds. Thus, this and Yugoslavia are/were okay since the UN said so.

[awake]

War presidents are popular and mostly unaccountable in any meaningful way. And that is what it's all about. Being able to use the 'the power' to murder and steal with complete impunity.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Interesting story. Could be nothing more than cover for Obama. They make it seem like it wasn't Obama's idea, and that Hillary made the call.

On the other hand, taking the story at face value, does a cruise missile fired by a woman result in a more gentle death for those killed? We always hear in regards to female candidates that "woman don't start wars"...

If you drop a bomb on a pregnant woman have you aborted her unborn child? - Oh wait, Hitlary is all for that....

[ItsTime]

Well, Obama says "use of force" was not his first option, so it's ok now.

And it was "a hard decision" blah blah bah same old 1984 doublespeak.

[Brian4Liberty]

Most "progressives" seem to oppose war on procedural grounds rather than substantive grounds. Thus, this and Yugoslavia are/were okay since the UN said so.

Except for that pesky procedure called for by The US Constitution about Congress declaring war...

[speciallyblend]

what we need is to start putting up obama/cheney 2012 bring our troops home signs everywhere! On a revolution scale to call out both sides on the issue!!

[tangent4ronpaul]

what we need is to start putting up obama/cheney 2012 bring our troops home signs everywhere! On a revolution scale to call out both sides on the issue!!

Naw - put up Obama/Chesney NUKE MECCA signs....

Rid the world of "brown" ppl that don't kiss JC's (and the military industrial complex's) ass.

[ihsv]

Via Drudge:

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'...

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'...

[Philhelm]

Via Drudge:

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'...

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'...

I think the fact that both conflicts started on March 19th is a way in which the "world" is trying to tell us something.

[FrankRep]

I think the fact that both conflicts started on March 19th is a way in which the "world" is trying to tell us something.

Future prediction:


"Mission Accomplished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_Speech)" on May 1, 2011

:p

[Kludge]

Future prediction:


"Mission Accomplished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_Speech)" on May 1, 2011

:p

Ha! Very possible.

Anyone aware if there is any popular support for Qaddafi in Libya? My poorly-based understanding is that Libyans are overwhelmingly opposed to Qaddafi. How many are opposed to foreign intervention? Indicators the USG will attempt to occupy Libya as it has done with Afghanistan? Predictions on possibilities of organized resistance to a new partly-USG occupation which would "force" the US to remain indefinitely?

[FrankRep]

Anyone aware if there is any popular support for Qaddafi in Libya?

This could get ugly.

Russia's Vladimir Zhirinovsky Urges Muslim World to Unite and Support Gaddafi
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284146-Russia-s-Vladimir-Zhirinovsky-Urges-Muslim-World-to-Unite-and-Support-Gaddafi

[Brian4Liberty]

The usual suspects are on-board with the latest war:


STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, KERRY AND LIEBERMAN
Senators Urge Swift Implementation Of U.N. Security Council Resolution
March 18, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. *– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) today released the following statement regarding the United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Libya urging swift implementation:

“We applaud tonight’s action by the UN Security Council authorizing ‘all necessary measures’ to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack. The Administration deserves credit for getting this Resolution passed with such strong support. This was an important step on behalf of the people of Libya, but it will only be as effective as its implementation. With Qaddafi’s forces moving towards Benghazi, we must immediately work with our friends in the Arab League and in NATO to enforce this resolution and turn the tide before it is too late. We must also build a bipartisan consensus here at home to support the President in taking the swift and decisive measures necessary to stop Qaddafi.”

[Brian4Liberty]

And of course Lyndsey Graham..."Iran!"



Official Press release:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the establishment of a No-Fly zone over Libya and what United States inaction means for our own national security. Graham is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“One test in foreign policy – at least be as bold as the French. Unfortunately, when it comes to Libya we’re failing that test.

“The French and British are right to call for a no-fly zone over Libya, and they are correct to recognize the forces opposing Gaddafi. I’m very disappointed by the indecisiveness of the Administration in the face of tyranny. They are allowing the cries of the Libyan people to fall on deaf ears.

“Allowing Gaddafi to regain control over Libya through force – without any meaningful effort to support the Libyan people – will create grave consequences for our own national security.

“The biggest winner of an indecisive America refusing to stand up to dictators who kill their own people, will be the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime has already used force against their own people when they demanded freedom. If we allow Gaddafi to regain power through force of arms, it is inconceivable to me that the Iranians will ever take our efforts to control their nuclear desires seriously.

And today:


Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said that allied forces -- led by the U.S. -- should expand the scope of its military mission to remove Gadhafi from power.

"I am very worried we are taking a back seat rather than a leadership role," he said on Fox News Sunday. "Isolate, strangle and replace this man. That should be our goal."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/150869-sen-graham-us-should-take-the-lead-on-libya-

[cswake]

Al Gore's take on the situation (replace Iraq with Libya):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uAIeVZVnRk

[South Park Fan]

And of course Lyndsey Graham..."Iran!"



And today:

So, if Lindsey's "French Test" is to be taken seriously, he would have supported the Vietnam War, as well as aiding a counterinsurgency in Algeria as well as the genocidaires in Rwanda.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.wecanbelievein.com/obama.php?text=War%20is%20Peace
269
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Obama-Warmonger.jpg
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/obama-satire/obamahypocrite.png

[Brian4Liberty]

So, if Lindsey's "French Test" is to be taken seriously, he would have supported the Vietnam War, as well as aiding a counterinsurgency in Algeria as well as the genocidaires in Rwanda.

Unfortunately, Lyndsey has one and only one test: AIPAC says jump, he asks "how high" and then adds "I can jump higher than that."