Was Reagan Right To Bomb Libya In Response To Terrorism?

[eduardo89]

Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing which Libya funded, planned, and executed. Was he right in doing this?

[jkob]

I think the bombing was a justified response for an attack that the Libyan government clearly orchestrated.

[Antischism]

No, and Rockwell wrote a piece about this if I'm not mistaken, which summarizes why.

Edit: Here it is (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/02/lew-rockwell/the-other-captive-nations/).


We are living in an Orwell novel, so it is not expected that anyone would remember President Ronald Reagan's war on Libya in 1986. Both Reagan and his vice president Bush were on television daily to decry Libya as a terror state ruled by a wicked dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The US bombing campaign was supposedly in retaliation for the alleged Libyan involvement in an attack on a German disco the previous year.

Gaddafi was certainly the Hitler of the day. In the attack, Gaddafi's 15-month-old adopted daughter, Hannah, was killed, and his two sons were wounded. Who cared? Hardly anyone because the demonization was intense and unrelenting. Tee shirts all over the country read: "F@#$ Gaddafi" and we heard all about his personal insanity and the wicked despotism he exercised over his own people.

Then, in time, and as always, the campaign died down, and eventually everyone forgot about the new Hitler and his country, just as Americans forget about any country with which they are not at war.

Decades went by. The next time we heard about Gaddafi was in 2003. President Bush joined Tony Blair to praise Libya for agreeing to dismantle a weapons program. It seemed that Gaddafi had moved from Hitler to being a gallant friend in the war on terror. And so it has remained. The Colonel was comfortably in charge and enjoyed a warm relationship with his new friends in Washington and London.

So it is something of a shock to discover that in fact Libya is ruled by a lifetime dictator who, like Mubarak and all his fellow US-backed dictators from North Africa to the Gulf states, is willing to kill and slaughter hundreds and thousands in order to maintain his rule.

The violence against anti-government protesters has been ghastly. The Libyan military has killed hundreds of people, firing not only on peaceful demonstrators but also on people who attend funeral processions in honor of the dead. As many as 800 are wounded and the blood is still flowing. The Colonel then brought out the big guns, tearing down the modern world by blocking the Internet and all communications in and out of the country, kill switch-style. Protesters claim that there is no going back, that this man who has ruled the country since 1969 must go. And surely he must and will.

If we look back at Reagan's 1986, we can see that it set something of a precedent for the post-Cold War foreign policy of the United States. It was not a war as such. It was a bombing undertaken by the US president alone. It was using the military and international violence in service of a political priority as determined by the executive branch.

Nor was it necessarily ideological. It was conducted with the alleged intention to somehow enact justice against crimes committed and to prevent future crimes by the same state. It was the same notion used only a few years later against Iraq and that now formed the entire foreign-policy theory of the war on terror. Looking back, it now seems obvious that it didn't work against Libya, for the monster who was in charge then is in charge now, using terror against his own people and in support of his own iron-fisted rule.

In fact, the result is often the opposite. A US bombing or other attack on a country can rally the people behind the leader, just as it has for decades in Cuba. The same happened in Iraq during the 1990s, as US-backed sanctions ended up emboldening government and unifying the country.

The protests sweeping the Arab world show another way. The citizens of these countries are taking their fate into their own hands, just as it should be, and not waiting for others to free them. It is very possible that Libyan citizens will end up unseating the dictator that Reagan did not unseat, and his successors ended up backing.

One of the great shocks that has greeted Americans this year has been to discover, perhaps for the first time, that the US has long been running its own bloc of satellite dictatorships in many parts of the world. Just as the Soviet Union had its "captive nations," so too the US has its own collection of valiant allies who are as wicked and oppressive toward their own peoples as the communist dictators of old.

Americans discovered this only recently due to the massive wave of protests all over the Arab world. Libya is one example. But there is also Egypt and Tunisia, plus Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Morocco, Djibouti, and other states, perhaps Saudi Arabia and the UAE too. In each case, a government in the pay and control of the US is facing a population sick of the human rights violations, the oppression, the economic backwardness, the injustice and the attacks on free speech and freedom of movement.

There is a tendency in the US to chalk the entire revolution up to a kind of anti-Americanism or to Muslim fundamentalism, though there is precious little evidence of that at all. If you listen to the speeches and hear the voices of the young, what you hear are the ideas of 1776. It is the language of universal human rights — the very American creed.

The bitter irony for most Americans is the very discovery that our own government has long presided over a collection of client states so cruel and closed that people have no choice but to pour out into the streets en masse, risking life and limb to get rid of pharaoh.

It is a fact: these people hate the tyrants. It is also a fact that these are "our" tyrants. The very existence exposes the gross hypocrisy of US foreign policy.

God bless these protesters. They are losing their chains. They are changing the Arab world — and the whole globe — by destabilizing and overthrowing the dictators. They are not only doing it without US help. They are doing it despite US support for the dictators they oppose. As such, these revolutions can mean more than the overthrow of despots; they can end in overthrowing the despotic policy and empire headquartered in Washington, DC. Want to join me in the streets?

Reagan was a hack who talked big, but a despicable failure just like Obama circa 2008 and beyond.

[compromise]

No "not sure" option?

[jkob]

The bombing was only 10 days after the Berlin disco bombing, not a year later like it says in Rockwell's article.

[Antischism]

The bombing was only 10 days after the Berlin disco bombing, not a year later like it says in Rockwell's article.

I'm assuming it's a typo on his part and he meant 'week' instead of 'year'.

[jkob]

I'm assuming it's a typo on his part and he meant 'week' instead of 'year'.

Hopefully but the article seems rather dismissive of the fact that it was a direct response to a Libyan attack on US servicemen in Berlin by a regime that was a known state sponsor of terrorism. The explosive was brought into West Berlin via diplomatic bag. I think the retaliatory bombing was justified and an appropriately measured response for such brazen attack.

[BamaAla]

No. Should have gotten a declaration of war.

[eduardo89]

Hopefully but the article seems rather dismissive of the fact that it was a direct response to a Libyan attack on US servicemen in Berlin against a regime that was a known state sponsor of terrorism. The explosive was brought into West Berlin via diplomatic bag. I think the retaliatory bombing was justified and an appropriately measured response for such brazen attack.

I agree.

[Cutlerzzz]

I think the bombing was a justified response for an attack that the Libyan government clearly orchestrated.

Where does the Constitution give Reagan the Authority to bomb Libya unilaterally?

[DamianTV]

Here we go again! :rolleyes:

Does anyone really believe that 9/11 was the ONLY inside job?

[eduardo89]

Here we go again! :rolleyes:

Does anyone really believe that 9/11 was the ONLY inside job?

Libya publicly admitted to it...

[Pericles]

I've given up on Rockwell's website. When contributor after contributor have the basic facts of history wrong, I can't give them any credibility.

PS: Goes for this board as well.

[AuH20]

I've given up on Rockwell's website. When contributor after contributor have the basic facts of history wrong, I can't give them any credibility.

PS: Goes for this board as well.

Revisionism galore. It's embarassing.

[JCDenton0451]

Was Reagan Right To Bomb Libya In Response To Terrorism?


To the extent that you consider collective punishment a legitimate tool in international relations, yes.

[Dr.3D]

I seem to recall that episode. Wasn't that when the French wouldn't give the U.S. permission to fly over and the French embassy was bombed because the pilots were so tired from flying around France all night long?

[HOLLYWOOD]

I seem to recall that episode. Wasn't that when the French wouldn't give the U.S. permission to fly over and the French embassy was bombed because the pilots were so tired from flying around France all night long?Yes that was the excuse...


Under W Bush, the U.S. government excepted responsibility for the bombings from the F-111 'Love Missiles'... admitted guilt and paid restitution to the Libya government and the victims. Qaddafi's adopted granddaughter was killed in that RAID.

[eduardo89]

Yes that was the excuse...


Under W Bush, the U.S. government excepted responsibility for the bombings from the F-111 'Love Missiles'... admitted guilt and paid restitution to the Libya government and the victims. Qaddafi's adopted granddaughter was killed in that RAID.

The US didn't need to accept responsibility for the bombings under Bush, Reagan was very clear it was the US. Also, Libya was the one who paid compensation to the families of the bombings, not the US.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The US didn't need to accept responsibility for the bombings under Bush, Reagan was very clear it was the US. Also, Libya was the one who paid compensation to the families of the bombings, not the US.You are absolutely wrong


I'll let your superior intellect find the information and report back

[amy31416]

Hopefully but the article seems rather dismissive of the fact that it was a direct response to a Libyan attack on US servicemen in Berlin by a regime that was a known state sponsor of terrorism. The explosive was brought into West Berlin via diplomatic bag. I think the retaliatory bombing was justified and an appropriately measured response for such brazen attack.

So, just reading up on things a bit--the bombing in Berlin was a response to the US taunting Libya in the Gulf of Sidra with military operations in disputed international waters.

Retaliation without completely understanding why these things happen in the first place is a bad idea, and I doubt anyone was overly concerned. I think the initial mistake was a lack of US diplomacy about our heavy military presence right off Libya's shores. So, ultimately I'm unsure as to whether it was the right thing to do, but I'd say probably not. But the attack in Berlin wasn't right either.

[Occam's Banana]

No. Reagan had absolutely NO rightful authority under the Constitution to do any such thing. He was NOT acting to prevent an imminent attack.

If retaliation was justified, then it ought to have been done via a Congressional declaration of war. It was NOT so done.

Therefore, Reagan was wrong. Period. Full stop.


Revisionism galore. It's embarassing.

Why? What is "revisionist" about it? That he mistakenly said "year" instead of "week?" :rolleyes:
That hasn't got a damn thing to do with the point he was making.

[jkob]

No. Reagan had absolutely NO rightful authority under the Constitution to do any such thing. He was NOT acting to prevent an imminent attack.

If retaliation was justified, then it ought to have been done via a Congressional declaration of war. It was NOT so done.

Therefore, Reagan was wrong. Period. Full stop.



Why? What is "revisionist" about it? That he mistakenly said "year" instead of "week?" :rolleyes:
That hasn't got a damn thing to do with the point he was making.

Saying the previous year as opposed to previous week(which is weird phrasing imo and wrong considering it was 10 days later) downplays the fact that it was a direct response to an attack by a foreign state against US servicemen in Berlin which Rockwell calls alleged. Given the tone of the next paragraph, I'm not sure it was just typo.

[Occam's Banana]

Why in the world would Rockwell deliberately make an erroneous claim that could be so easily debunked?

It makes absolutely no sense at all (except perhaps to Rockwell haters).


Saying the previous year as opposed to previous week(which is weird phrasing imo and wrong considering it was 10 days later)
Phrasing? What are you talking about? What is any weirder about saying "the previous year" in comparison to "the previous week." :confused:

The only thing "weird" about it is that it is WRONG. No one is denying this. It is simply mistaken. No more. No less.


downplays the fact that it was a direct response to an attack by a foreign state against US servicemen in Berlin which Rockwell calls alleged.

Again, what are you talking about? Rockwell said: "The US bombing campaign was supposedly in retaliation for the alleged Libyan involvement in an attack on a German disco the previous year."

His use of "alleged" (or "supposedly") has got nothing to do with it. That is nothing more than a characterization of particular elements of what he very clearly & explicitly identifies "the bombing" as being "in retaliation for" - that is, a "direct response." His sentence-ending use of the phrase "the previous [whatever]" does not in any way "downplay" this.


Given the tone of the next paragraph, I'm not sure it was just typo.

If anything, the following paragraph - speaking, as it does, of the intensity of the reaction - suggests even more strongly that it was in fact an honest mistake. The intensity of reactions to such events taper off over time - so the intensity of the reaction to this particular event would have been much greater a week afterwards than it would have been 3-1/2 months or more afterwards (which is what it would have had to be in order to have been "the previous year").

[enhanced_deficit]

By same token, are you implying Russia was wrong to not bomb US due to Reagan support for terrorism against Russians?

http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/reagan_taliban_1985.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=p8ONUEe5niTyDM&tbnid=7Z0u5ktPKdug7M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legitgov.org%2FReagan-calls-Taliban-moral-equivalent-Americas-founding-fathers&ei=_HwOUpvEII709gSUy4HwBQ&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFV18Nmq0Y8wEnFPkbAwKMaehx5fA&ust=1376767607516945)http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Peace/2013/06/06/hanging.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=BgS7MUyLfU6N8M&tbnid=UJhzMNBKaWqbiM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2FBig-Peace%2F2013%2F06%2F06%2FTaliban-Magazine-Claims-Obama-Weak-Like-Gorbachev-U-S-Defeated-Like-The-U-S-S-R&ei=e34OUr2oMeXwyAGJh4G4Bg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNEufrHoOHIrb-f5WantonnD0GfwHA&ust=1376767963452935)

[eduardo89]

You are absolutely wrong

I'll let your superior intellect find the information and report back

You are wrong.


Following discussions in London in May 2008, US and Libyan officials agreed to start negotiations to resolve all outstanding bilateral compensation claims, including those relating to UTA Flight 772, the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and Pan Am Flight 103. On 14 August 2008, a US-Libya compensation deal was signed in Tripoli by US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Libya's Foreign Ministry head of America affairs, Ahmed al-Fatroui. The agreement covers 26 lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya, and three by Libyan citizens in respect of the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 which killed at least 40 people and injured 220. In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the
Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20% of the sum agreed in 2003;

American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;
American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and,
Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.

As a result, President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. US State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for a continued and expanding US-Libyan partnership."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya

Libya accepted responsibility for multiple terrorist attacks and agreed to compensate the victims of American retaliation bombings.

[heavenlyboy34]

The hating on LRC in here is totally uncalled for. The same sort of errors mentioned in this thread happen far more often in MSM and other "official" information sources-especially the government. (the big papers have "retraction" sections for journalistic errors pretty regularly-and factcheck.org, etc routinely catch MSM and webbernet folks in error)

[pcosmar]

I think the bombing was a justified response for an attack that the Libyan government clearly orchestrated.

There was a trial? I don't remember that.

And why would you take the word of people that have been proven over and over again to be Dishonest and wrong.

See; Gulf of Tonkin,, also reference Operation Northwoods.


Voted NO.

[jkob]

There was a trial? I don't remember that.

And why would you take the word of people that have been proven over and over again to be Dishonest and wrong.

See; Gulf of Tonkin,, also reference Operation Northwoods.


Voted NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing#Trial_and_convicti on

[69360]

Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing which Libya funded, planned, and executed. Was he right in doing this?

Yes.


Where does the Constitution give Reagan the Authority to bomb Libya unilaterally?

The war powers act of 1973 did. The president has to notify congress within 48 hours of hostilities and can only continue hostilities for 60 days without congressional approval.

[pcosmar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing#Trial_and_convicti on

Well according to that,, (and if you trust the Stazi) The Embassy in Germany should have been targeted.

But that was 10 years after innocent people were killed and injured in the US strikes.

My vote NO remains.

[Snew]

nope.

[Occam's Banana]

Where does the Constitution give Reagan the Authority to bomb Libya unilaterally?


The war powers act of 1973 did. The president has to notify congress within 48 hours of hostilities and can only continue hostilities for 60 days without congressional approval.

The War Powers Act is NOT in the Constitution. And by the same "logic," the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc. justify indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance, and so forth.

Reagan had NO proper authority to do what he did - and Congress had NO proper authority to allow him to do it.

[eduardo89]

The War Powers Act is NOT in the Constitution.

The War Powers Act does not violate the constitution.


Reagan had NO proper authority to do what he did - and Congress had NO proper authority to allow him to do it.

Congress has the authority to give the president the power to wage war.

[pcosmar]

The War Powers Act does not violate the constitution.



Congress has the authority to give the president the power to wage war.

No,, Congress has the power to Declare War.

The rest of that is bullshit.. It is the bullshit that has been long pushed as a workaround the Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

Congress has the authority to give the president the power to wage war.
Incorrect. But it is possible to bend the meaning of the Constitution to make it say that-one of the many failures of Constitutionalism.

[jkob]

What would of been an appropriate response for the Berlin bombing?

Is congress not declaring war on Libya the only hangup?

[pcosmar]

What would of been an appropriate response for the Berlin bombing?


An investigation and targeted prosecution of those directly involved.
The indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in Libya is not justified under any circumstance.

Period.

[jkob]

An investigation and targeted prosecution of those directly involved.
The indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in Libya is not justified under any circumstance.

Period.

Civilians weren't targeted indiscriminately. The targets of the bombing were Muammar Gaddafi himself, military barracks, airfields, and their air defenses.

[Occam's Banana]

The War Powers Act does not violate the constitution.

I disagree. It clearly violates the letter, spirit and (very well established) intent of the Constitution.

The War Powers Act was nothing but an attempt by Congressmen to spinelessly shirk their Constitutionally-mandated duty to make such decisions.


Congress has the authority to give the president the power to wage war.

No it doesn't. The Constitution already gives the President the power to wage (i.e., conduct) war.
That is part of the President's job as Commander-in-Chief - and one of his Constitutional responsibilities.
But the Constitution does NOT permit the President to wage war unless and until:
(1) he is authorized to do so by Congress (by a declaration of war), OR
(2) the country is under sudden attack or the immediate threat of such.

The authors of the Constitution made these things abundantly clear in their discussions and writings about the matter.
Decisions regarding whether to take military action that is not immediately defensive was NOT to reside within the executive.

FTA (emphasis added): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

[That the President might need] to repel a sudden attack [...] was contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, in Philadelphia, during August of the summer of 1787, when the wording of the proposed Constitution was being finalized[.] [T]he draft read that Congress could "make war." This was changed to "declare war" specifically in order to allow the President to defend the country from sudden attacks. "Mr. Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) and Mr. Gerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry) moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." That the President took decisive action to defend the country does not relieve the Congress of its Art. I obligation to vote on whether to declare and continue the war.

The President may properly employ the miitary in such a way as Reagan did only in immediate defense.
Any situation affording the opportunity for deliberation (as the Libyan situation did) requires explicit Congressional approval.
The bombing of Libya was NOT made in order to defend the country from a sudden or imminent attack.
It was made in retaliation for an attack that had already occurred (and which was a possible act of war).
As such, it only properly falls under the purview of the legislative (and NOT the executive) authority.

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

As to the [...] intent of the American founders, there was only one delegate [to the Constitutional Convention] who suggested giving the Executive the power to take offensive military action: Pierce Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Butler) of South Carolina. He suggested the President should be able to, but in practice would have the character not to do so without mass support. Elbridge Gerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry), a delegate from Massachusetts, summed up the majority viewpoint saying he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." George Mason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason), Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and others voiced similar sentiments.

[Cutlerzzz]

Gaddafi's 15 month old daughter and 15 other civilians were killed in these bombings. Was killing them worth 2 American Soldiers?

[Danan]

By same token, are you implying Russia was wrong to not bomb US due to Reagan support for terrorism against Russians?

http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/reagan_taliban_1985.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=p8ONUEe5niTyDM&tbnid=7Z0u5ktPKdug7M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legitgov.org%2FReagan-calls-Taliban-moral-equivalent-Americas-founding-fathers&ei=_HwOUpvEII709gSUy4HwBQ&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFV18Nmq0Y8wEnFPkbAwKMaehx5fA&ust=1376767607516945)http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Peace/2013/06/06/hanging.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=BgS7MUyLfU6N8M&tbnid=UJhzMNBKaWqbiM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2FBig-Peace%2F2013%2F06%2F06%2FTaliban-Magazine-Claims-Obama-Weak-Like-Gorbachev-U-S-Defeated-Like-The-U-S-S-R&ei=e34OUr2oMeXwyAGJh4G4Bg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNEufrHoOHIrb-f5WantonnD0GfwHA&ust=1376767963452935)

You won't get an answer on that.

[pcosmar]

Civilians weren't targeted indiscriminately. The targets of the bombing were Muammar Gaddafi himself, military barracks, airfields, and their air defenses.

Bullshit..
He was alive for many years.


U.S. President Ronald Reagan retaliated by ordering airstrikes against the Libyan capital of Tripoli and city of Benghazi (see Operation El Dorado Canyon). At least 15 civilians were killed in the U.S. airstrikes on Libya, including a child described as leader Colonel Gaddafi's adopted 15-month old daughter, and more than 2000 were injured, including the then–three-year-old Khamis Gaddafi

[jkob]

Bullshit..
He was alive for many years.

Gaddafi only lived because the Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi phoned him with a warning minutes before the attack.

[Cutlerzzz]

Gaddafi only lived because the Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi phoned him with a warning minutes before the attack.

So you support giving the President the Power to unilaterally over throw other governments?

[kcchiefs6465]

So you support giving the President the Power to unilaterally over throw other governments?
Many do.

If it's a republican in office.

Never seen the reasoning behind Reagan being put up on an almost holy like pedestal. The man should have been impeached a few times over.

[krugminator]

So I am not totally sure of the facts outside of what I just read on Wikipedia. It looks like the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers in a German nightclub.

If the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers, why would it not be okay to retaliate? What is the argument against? Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion to go after terrorists. This is an attack by a government. Unless I have the facts wrong, the seems like about the most clear case of justified military force that I can think of.

[pcosmar]

Many do.

If it's a republican in office.

Never seen the reasoning behind Reagan being put up on an almost holy like pedestal. The man should have been impeached a few times over.

The man didn't run anything.. Bush did.

[AuH20]

So I am not totally sure of the facts outside of what I just read on Wikipedia. It looks like the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers in a German nightclub.

If the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers, why would it not be okay to retaliate? What is the argument against? Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion to go after terrorists. This is an attack by a government. Unless I have the facts wrong, the seems like about the most clear case of justified military force that I can think of.

Pretty much. The Libyans even admitted to the bombings. Now regarding Afghanistan, wasn't that a bit more specious? The Taliban was not Al Qaeda.

[krugminator]

Libya publicly admitted to it...

If they admitted it, how would it not be okay to have swift forceful retaliation? Libertarianism doesn't mean pacifism.

[Cutlerzzz]

So I am not totally sure of the facts outside of what I just read on Wikipedia. It looks like the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers in a German nightclub.

If the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers, why would it not be okay to retaliate? What is the argument against? Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion to go after terrorists. This is an attack by a government. Unless I have the facts wrong, the seems like about the most clear case of justified military force that I can think of.

1: Because Reagan did not ask Congress for permission, making it illegal.

2: Because there was not much of an investigation, the bombing of Libya took place almost just ten days later.

3: Bombing campaigns are messy and inevitably kill civilians. This one killed 15 civilians, along with two more Americans. Was killing 15 civilians and doubling the number of dead American's worth it?

[pcosmar]

So I am not totally sure of the facts outside of what I just read on Wikipedia. It looks like the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers in a German nightclub.

If the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers, why would it not be okay to retaliate? What is the argument against? Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion to go after terrorists. This is an attack by a government. Unless I have the facts wrong, the seems like about the most clear case of justified military force that I can think of.

Well first of all. I don't consider an allegation as proof of guilt.

Secondly,, If guilt is proven,, then target exactly the persons responsible,, arrest or kill them directly and don't involve innocent children.
I am not in favor of bombs.. that is a Mossad thing.

And lastly,, I know Libya made a plea bargain years later and took credit for them,, in exchange for political favors.
This also does not prove guilt. And does not prove others were not involved.

[Cutlerzzz]

If they admitted it, how would it not be okay to have swift forceful retaliation? Libertarianism doesn't mean pacifism.

They didn't admit to it until much later.

[AuH20]

They didn't admit to it until much later.

And they eventually admitted to the Lockerbie bombing as well. This wasn't an innocent group we were talking about. It's like Lance Armstrong who swore he never took PEDs.

[pcosmar]

If they admitted it, how would it not be okay to have swift forceful retaliation? Libertarianism doesn't mean pacifism.

Attacking innocents is wrong.. Sending Bombers into a country to drop 60 tons of munitions..and completely miss your target is not even reasonable.

Especially since there was no investigation. Not till years later.

[pcosmar]

And they eventually admitted to the Lockerbie bombing as well. This wasn't an innocent group we were talking about.

And WHY did they admit that?

You know,, coerced confessions are not even allowed in what passes for a justice system in this country.

That "admission" was politically motivated.. Years of sanctions,, and a threat of war.
Yeah,, they admitted it and took the deal ,, and joined the "War on Terror".

[Cutlerzzz]

And they eventually admitted to the Lockerbie bombing as well. This wasn't an innocent group we were talking about. It's like Lance Armstrong who swore he never took PEDs.

Reagan did not know that. The police can't shoot a murderer until after an investigation and trial. To kill people without being certain of their wrong doing is wrong.

[jkob]

The Libyan government orchestrated the attack on US servicemen in Berlin, this is a fact. There was no mystery of who was responsible, Gaddafi congratulated the Libyan diplomats in East Germany on a job well done after the attack. The retaliatory strikes were a restrained response given the circumstances in my opinion, there is no question that Gaddafi was an enemy of the United States and posed an imminent threat at the time. Unfortunately the bombing didn't kill Gaddafi and we lost 270 more lives in Lockerbie.

[pcosmar]

The Libyan government orchestrated the attack on US servicemen in Berlin, this is a fact. There was no mystery of who was responsible, Gaddafi congratulated the Libyan diplomats in East Germany on a job well done after the attack. The retaliatory strikes were a restrained response given the circumstances in my opinion, there is no question that Gaddafi was an enemy of the United States and posed an imminent threat at the time. Unfortunately the bombing didn't kill Gaddafi and we lost 270 more lives in Lockerbie.

And you know this how?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8-ffiYyzA



IT WAS A FUCKING LIE

[jjdoyle]

Gaddafi only lived because the Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi phoned him with a warning minutes before the attack.

I don't think it was the Italian Prime Minister that warned him, but instead an Italian politician?

[jkob]

And you know this how?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8-ffiYyzA

Because Libya was behind the attack. This is undisputed fact. You can try to argue that we couldn't of known at the time but we did.

[eduardo89]

And you know this how?

Because the Libyan government itself said they were behind it?

[pcosmar]

Because the Libyan government itself said they were behind it?

Under coercion. And with a reward.

I question such an admission.

[HOLLYWOOD]

You are wrong.



Libya accepted responsibility for multiple terrorist attacks and agreed to compensate the victims of American retaliation bombings.LOL WIKIPEDIA? GESUS, you can do better than that!

PS: And don't give me any of that

British
Bullshit
Corporation

government propaganda



PS: I'll give you a hint... US Embassy cables & telexes... research, you might even find them here on RPF

[UWDude]

The Libyan government orchestrated the attack on US servicemen in Berlin, this is a fact.

proof?


There was no mystery of who was responsible, Gaddafi congratulated the Libyan diplomats in East Germany on a job well done after the attack.

proof? Don't link to me your broad reading of a wikipedia article either, I know reading four paragraphs on the situation makes you an expert, but since you failed at even that, I'd like for you to show me the proof Gaddafi sent a congratulations.


The people saying "Gaddafi did it" still have no clue what the political structure of Libya under gaddafi was like. It's even funnier how quick they are to rush to judgement of Gaddafi without any proof.... ...just assumption based on a very short wikipedia article on the subjects.


And finally, even if gaddafi himself put the bomb in a soldier's martini, why was Gaddafi putting bombs in GI's martinis? Because he hated their freedom, or was it because of the Gulf or Sidra incident? So even if (which is HIGHLY questionable)... even if he did it, there is more to the story than Gaddaif hates Americans because of their freedom.

Easy fucking NO. America had no business in the Gulf of Sidra in the first place.

[UWDude]

The Libyans even admitted to the bombings.

who are these "the Libyans" and what did they "admit to" exactly? I know they paid restitution, but Gaddafi denied responsibility for Lockerbie until the end, as did the supposed bomber himself.

Gaddafi pretty much admitted "ok, FINE, somebody from Libya did it, but we do not know who, and it certainly wasn't me, but I'll pay for it anyway, and end my nuke program, now can we please start trading?"

[eduardo89]

proof?

Don't link to me your broad reading of a wikipedia article either, I know reading four paragraphs on the situation makes you an expert, but since you failed at even that, I'd like for you to show me the proof Gaddafi sent a congratulations.


The people saying "Gaddafi did it" still have no clue what the political structure of Libya under gaddafi was like. It's even funnier how quick they are to rush to judgement of Gaddafi without any proof.... ...just assumption based on a very short wikipedia article on the subjects.

Flashback: The Berlin disco bombing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1653848.stm)

Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was the brains behind the attack, the US said.

Libya inks $35m Berlin bomb deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3625756.stm)

Three former employees of the Libyan embassy in east Berlin and the wife of one of them were convicted of carrying out the bombing by a German court.

Berlin's La Belle nightclub bombing remembered 25 years on (http://www.dw.de/berlins-la-belle-nightclub-bombing-remembered-25-years-on/a-14965254)

According to the Stasi files, Eter had worked at the Libyan embassy in East Berlin and the files listed him as an agent and the main contact of the Libyan secret service at the embassy. Not only did the files reveal Eter's role in the bombing, they implicated the Libyan embassy as the main planning hub for the attack.

Did NSA financial intel nail Gadhafi for ’86 Berlin Bombing? (http://timshorrock.com/?p=1093)

Due to this tracking system, the Reagan administration was able to prove that Gadhafi and Libyan intelligence operatives were behind the 1983 bombing of a night club in Berlin that killed three U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman and injured at least 200 more.

[UWDude]

Libya inks $35m Berlin bomb deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3625756.stm)

I'm not seeing where there is proof Gaddafi did it there. Can you perhaps lead me to it in the article?



Berlin's La Belle nightclub bombing remembered 25 years on (http://www.dw.de/berlins-la-belle-nightclub-bombing-remembered-25-years-on/a-14965254)

So, exactly who is saying Gaddafi did it? Because, I know the article does it's best to imply it was proven Gaddafi gave the order, but doesn't exactly say it, does it? What it does say is:

German officials issued a carefully worded response, saying that Gadhafi "distanced himself from terrorism" but they denied he had said anything specific about the La Belle or Lockerbie bombings. A German parliamentary inquiry into the conversation and leaked diplomatic cable also failed to find evidence of a Libyan confession to involvement in any specific attacks.

So go ahead and quote from the article where the court proved Gaddafi gave the order, and then weep when you realize your desire to blame gaddafi let you be mislead by an article written to mislead. Go ahead, do your best, give me your best quote.


Did NSA financial intel nail Gadhafi for ’86 Berlin Bombing? (http://timshorrock.com/?p=1093)


Thta's not proof. The word of a CIA agent isn't proof. The lack of words from CIA agent Matthew Gannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Gannon) is not proof either. But what do you expect, he was killed in the Lockerbie bombing.


Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was the brains behind the attack, the US said.

Who said?

The US said?

Is this "Saddam kicked babies from incubators" and "Gaddafi gave out viagra for rape" US? That US says?


And of course, it is the old propaganda trick of the media to use words like "iraq" and "saddam", or "gaddafi" and "libya" interchangeably, so simpleton can get the two confused and support wars against the country and the people of the country, because they start to believe the country and the people of the country are the same as the leader. And since the leader is demonized, just say "we are attacking Saddam, not Iraq" and they'll nod their heads in agreement.

[jkob]

proof?



proof? Don't link to me your broad reading of a wikipedia article either, I know reading four paragraphs on the situation makes you an expert, but since you failed at even that, I'd like for you to show me the proof Gaddafi sent a congratulations.


The people saying "Gaddafi did it" still have no clue what the political structure of Libya under gaddafi was like. It's even funnier how quick they are to rush to judgement of Gaddafi without any proof.... ...just assumption based on a very short wikipedia article on the subjects.


And finally, even if gaddafi himself put the bomb in a soldier's martini, why was Gaddafi putting bombs in GI's martinis? Because he hated their freedom, or was it because of the Gulf or Sidra incident? So even if (which is HIGHLY questionable)... even if he did it, there is more to the story than Gaddaif hates Americans because of their freedom.

Easy fucking NO. America had no business in the Gulf of Sidra in the first place.

You're not an expert any more than me, maybe Jesse Ventura or Alex Jones have other theories but the rest of the sane world accepts the fact that Gaddafi supported terrorism against the US. That doesn't mean I support aggression against Libya but I don't believe that is the case here. Even Ron Paul voted to INVADE Afghanistan.

[UWDude]

You're not an expert any more than me, maybe Jesse Ventura or Alex Jones have other theories but the rest of the sane world accepts the fact that Gaddafi supported terrorism against the US. That doesn't mean I support aggression against Libya but I don't believe that is the case here.

I believe I asked for proof, not an appeal to popular thought, which is a logical fallacy.
And this has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. I asked for proof, you have brought none.
And yes, I am more of an expert than you. I know I have read more books and news articles than you, times ten, at least. I can tell by your simplistic arguments and comments you are far more ignorant than I am about everything, including the political structures of Libya "under" Gaddafi.
But expertise is a topic you brought up, and quite irrelevant, because I asked you for proof Gaddafi even knew of the plot. And instead of even attempting to answer, you tried guilt by association, (comparing me to alex jones and jesse ventura), appeal to popularity (what everybody thinks does not prove anything), an ad hominem (the rest of the sane world, meaning I must be insane), ex part de facto (claiming it is a fact Gaddafi supported terrorism does not mean it is a fact), and then a special logical fallacy for Ron Paul forums, irreleventas appellate de Ron Paul, by claiming Ron Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan, although clearly the topic is about Libya.

Fail all around. How about you try to answer my questions this time:
where is the proof the Libyan government orchestrated the attacks, and I don't want a link to an article, I want a quote from the link saying there was proof, I also want proof the government admitted it was behind the attacks, and proof that Gaddafi admitted. I don't want links, I want quotes. The links you guys are posting have quotes in them which are directly contradicting what you are claiming.

So please, answer the questions, or shut up.

[jkob]

I believe I asked for proof, not an appeal to popular thought, which is a logical fallacy.
And this has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. I asked for proof, you have brought none.
And yes, I am more of an expert than you. I know I have read more books and news articles than you, times ten, at least. I can tell by your simplistic arguments and comments you are far more ignorant than I am about everything, including the political structures of Libya "under" Gaddafi.
But expertise is a topic you brought up, and quite irrelevant, because I asked you for proof Gaddafi even knew of the plot. And instead of even attempting to answer, you tried guilt by association, (comparing me to alex jones and jesse ventura), appeal to popularity (what everybody thinks does not prove anything), an ad hominem (the rest of the sane world, meaning I must be insane), ex part de facto (claiming it is a fact Gaddafi supported terrorism does not mean it is a fact), and then a special logical fallacy for Ron Paul forums, irreleventas appellate de Ron Paul, by claiming Ron Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan, although clearly the topic is about Libya.

Fail all around. How about you try to answer my questions this time:
where is the proof the Libyan government orchestrated the attacks, and I don't want a link to an article, I want a quote from the link saying there was proof, I also want proof the government admitted it was behind the attacks, and proof that Gaddafi admitted. I don't want links, I want quotes. The links you guys are posting have quotes in them which are directly contradicting what you are claiming.

So please, answer the questions, or shut up.

Or what? You puff yourself up and toot your own horn but you're talking out your ass based on absolutely nothing. For all the more books and articles you supposedly read more than me do you have anything relevant to this topic? Anything? Can you 'redpill' me on it what really happened? I seriously would want to know if you do.

As for your question, you don't seem to want to accept any answers. You want a quote and that means? What? "I did it. - Muammar Gaddafi" Is that what you want? You don't accept the fact that there was a trial that found 4 people guilty of the attack and determined that they acted on the instruction of Libyan intelligence. You don't accept that Gaddafi admitted culpability by 'Libyan officials' altho not himself of course and paid billions of dollars in compensation to the victims of these crimes. You don't believe that there a was a cable from Libya to their embassy East Germany congratulating them on a 'job well done'. I'm assuming you don't believe Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing or any other terror attack. Do you not believe that Gaddafi supported the IRA, the PLO, Red Brigades, the ETA, ANO? Or were those organizations not guilty of terrorism either?

What amount of proof would be good enough for you?

[UWDude]

Or what?

Or you can keep blustering.


As for your question, you don't seem to want to accept any answers. You want a quote and that means? What? "I did it. - Muammar Gaddafi" Is that what you want?
Yes, because that is what you said happened. Now you are huffing and puffing the best you can, because you can't admit you were wrong. YOu said he admitted it. When called out on it... ...you put on a big display with lots of rockets shooting out of your ass, but, oh, still... FAIL.


You don't accept the fact that there was a trial that found 4 people guilty of the attack and determined that they acted on the instruction of Libyan intelligence.

With the help of libyan intelligence, but that does not mean gaddafi gave the command.




You don't accept that Gaddafi admitted culpability by 'Libyan officials' altho not himself of course and paid billions of dollars in compensation to the victims of these crimes. You don't believe that there a was a cable from Libya to their embassy East Germany congratulating them on a 'job well done'.

I accept all that. But that's not what you said, now is it. You said Gaddafi admitted he did it, because you read an article wrong. Now look at you pathetically try to backtrack and cover it in bluster.





I'm assuming you don't believe Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing or any other terror attack. Do you not believe that Gaddafi supported the IRA, the PLO, Red Brigades, the ETA, ANO? Or were those organizations not guilty of terrorism either?

He may have, don't see how this is proving your earlier statements. It's more bluster, not backing up your original "facts"


What amount of proof would be good enough for you?

how about something like Gaddafi admitting he gave the command for the attacks, since it was him and his family that was targeted? I mean that is what you said happened, and you stated it like it was undeniable fact... so where is the fucking proof?

No proof? Then shut up.


"I did it. - Muammar Gaddafi"

That's what you said, you said he said this, so, find the quote.

That was the big obvious of your case. You were like "oh, he admitted he did it, like, duh, so, it should be obvious he did it, duh." to other people on this board.

when in fact, he always denied it. so, yes, I want the quote where he admitted it. Like... duh.

[pcosmar]

Yellow Cake

[jkob]

Or you can keep blustering.

Yes, because that is what you said happened. Now you are huffing and puffing the best you can, because you can't admit you were wrong. YOu said he admitted it. When called out on it... ...you put on a big display with lots of rockets shooting out of your ass, but, oh, still... FAIL.



With the help of libyan intelligence, but that does not mean gaddafi gave the command.





I accept all that. But that's not what you said, now is it. You said Gaddafi admitted he did it, because you read an article wrong. Now look at you pathetically try to backtrack and cover it in bluster.






He may have, don't see how this is proving your earlier statements. It's more bluster, not backing up your original "facts"



how about something like Gaddafi admitting he gave the command for the attacks, since it was him and his family that was targeted? I mean that is what you said happened, and you stated it like it was undeniable fact... so where is the fucking proof?

No proof? Then shut up.


That's what you said, you said he said this, so, find the quote.

That was the big obvious of your case. You were like "oh, he admitted he did it, like, duh, so, it should be obvious he did it, duh." to other people on this board.

when in fact, he always denied it. so, yes, I want the quote where he admitted it. Like... duh.

Care to find the post where I said this?

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

And WHY did they admit that?

You know,, coerced confessions are not even allowed in what passes for a justice system in this country.

That "admission" was politically motivated.. Years of sanctions,, and a threat of war.
Yeah,, they admitted it and took the deal ,, and joined the "War on Terror".

http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1976-1992/1989/1989-story12.htm




12. THE SECRET PAN AM 103 REPORT THE MEDIA IGNORED

On December 21, 1988, Pan American flight 103, en route from Frankfurt to the U.S. via London, blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 people. The mass media quickly reported that the plane carried a bomb planted by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

On November 6,1989, Congressman James A. Traficant, Jr., (D-Ohio), released extraordinary information which implicated the CIA in the tragedy. The mass media have ignored this information.

Traficant's information was based on a 27-page report by Interfor, a New York consulting group reportedly made up of ex-CIA and Mossad agents, which had been hired by PanAm's insurance company, U.S. Aviation Underwriters, to investigate the accident.

Following are some of the controversial findings:

* A joint CIA-State Department special hostage-rescue team, of from five to eight people, was on board the plane. They were on an unannounced return from Lebanon, carrying maps showing the location of some of the American hostages there. They were also bringing information about what they believed to be an unauthorized and illegal scheme concocted by another CIA group in Frankfurt (called "CIA-1" in the report).

* CIA-1, the unauthorized West German team, was "handling" Syrian Monzer Al-Kassar and protecting his smuggling routes in return for help freeing U.S. hostages. The report suggests CIA-1 was a renegade unit and not part of the regular agency, since it "has a control at an unknown area in the Washington, DC area," rather than CIA headquarters in Langely, Virginia. It goes on to say, "It appears that it eventually operated to some or a large extent as an internal covert operation without consistent oversight, a la Oliver North."

* The terrorists utilized PanAm flights out of Frankfurt, where they controlled a Turkish baggage handler who could switch bags after they had been inspected. Both CIA-1 and the German police learned in advance from Al-Kassar, that a bomb was going to be placed on flight 103 by another group, led by Palestinian Ahmed Jibril. CIA-1 also knew of the special team's travel plans.

* Because CIA-1 "did not want to blow its surveillance operation and undercover penetration or to risk the Al-Kassar hostage release operation," they did not take any direct steps to stop the flight.

The CIA has labeled Interfor's findings "nonsense" and the West German police agency BKA also has issued a denial. Nevertheless, it is strange that the major media have given so little coverage to the PanAm report, despite an abiding interest in the plane crash.

SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: AUDREY AUERBACH

THE SECRET PAN AM 103 REPORT

SOURCE: LIES OF OUR TIMES 145 West 4th Street New York, NY 10012
DATE: January 1990
TITLE: "THE SECRET PAN AM REPORT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT"
AUTHOR: HOWARD FRIEL

SOURCE: SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN 520 Hampshire Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
DATE: 12/6/89
TITLE: "FLIGHT 103: THE OTHER STORY"
AUTHOR: ERICK ANDERSON

COMMENTS: This is the kind of story that lends itself to conspiracy theories and the expected knee-jerk negative reaction to such theories. Unfortunately, too often this has led to complete censorship of the issue since professional journalists don't want to take a chance with unpopular theories on controversial issues. Occasionally, however, some of these theories achieve credibility despite this. (For example, Dan Rather, whose narrative review of the Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination supported the lone assassin theory at the time, now admits that, despite his broadcast and the Warren Commission report, he doesn't know who killed John F. Kennedy.) The tragic Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed in Lockerbie is another story engulfed in a swirl of controversial theories. Erick Anderson, who has explored this issue, notes that while the crash of Flight 103 was "the subject of a great deal of major media coverage, virtually none was given to this alternate theory (which implicates the CIA in the tragedy). Even an ABC Network program, which touted itself as 'The real story of of Flight 103,' made no mention of this version -- even to dismiss it as fantasy." Anderson also points out that there are a sizable number of people who do not want to see this particular theory receive broader coverage. "The list of beneficiaries from its lack of coverage (of the CIA involve-ment) includes the story's key players: Middle Eastern terrorists, officers and agents of the CIA, the Bush and Reagan administrations, and anyone who may be involved in developing and carrying out America's Byzantine foreign policy here and abroad," Anderson concluded.

[UWDude]

Care to find the post where I said this?


There was no mystery of who was responsible, Gaddafi congratulated the Libyan diplomats in East Germany on a job well done after the attack.


....

[osan]

Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing which Libya funded, planned, and executed. Was he right in doing this?

This sounds like troll meat. Are you serious?

But now that I am at it, Reagan is an interesting study in the globalist question. He is praised immensely even to day as being the last "real" president, but I have insisted since about 1980 that he was the first Klown Prezident, the dynasty of which continues to this day and is thus far epitomized by Obama as the King Klown.

Consider the evidence to suggest he was not what so many appear to believe. He said many liberty oriented things; things that taken on face value would indeed suggest with some strength that he was a "real" American. Even I, in retrospect, and sore tempted to regard the man as great when I read or hear these tantalizing tidbit messages of individual sovereignty and the freedom it connotes.

But then I remind myself of the things he did and am drawn immediately back into myself with some unpleasant violence. Bombing Libya was not the act of a man who walked his talk, nor were "his" economic policies, or just about anything else other than his mere words. Recall how David Stockman immediately noted in public fashion that "Reaganomics" was not going to work - a point on which he was proven painfully correct - and was shown the door 30 days later, dubbed as a "resignation" or "retirement" or some such nonsense to pursue other opportunities. Indeed.

The list is long and I will not go into it because the elements are easy enough to find on one's own. But the important thing to identify in all of is this: either Reagan spoke honestly and forthrightly from his heart or he didn't. If he didn't, then he was just another low-rent, big talking scumbag and willing criminal on his bully pulpit railing on endlessly and without mercy about what we should and should not do, want, be, think, love, and so forth. If he did, then the yawning disparities between what he said and did serve as damning evidence that the office of Prezident is not the office of the President and that he was owned, lock, stock, and barrel by someone. Those someone's names I suspect we will never know.

Photoshop is an amazing thing and for some reasons it really sucks because I recently saw a photo showing Reagan attending the big celebration at Bohemian Grove. It proves nothing in terms of who he was as a man per se, but it does raise some questions. Some would damn him immediately based on this, but it is not reasonable because it could have been the only time he attended, having known nothing about what was in store for him. I know nothing further, so cannot speculate too much there, however this in itself raises other possible points regarding either the man himself or those who persuaded him to attend. If anyone knows anything more about this, I'd like to hear about it.

Who Reagan was is materially irrelevant at this stage of the game. The circumstances of his tenure as president, however, are most relevant and provide very convincing evidence that no president since Reagan at the very least has been his own man. Yes, we all "know" that this condition goes way back into our history, but from 1980 on there can be no credible argument made against the evidence of circumstance that is at hand. And those circumstances have only intensified with the ascent of each of the succeeding Klowns. Bush^1 was apparently too big a bite and fell after his first term - assuming the train of succession is not that closely planned. But we took it in the neck in spades with Clinton and with our shields down dramatically, Theye hit us again for 8 more years with Bush^2 and all the joys he sprang upon us. And now we are blessed - endowed - with the UltraKlown - the king of the great windbag buffoons, only this time things are different. Now, even the rhetoric has changed and once again we see an improved alignment between what is said and done and that the people of this nation have in so vast measure failed to recognize and understand what this means is one of the most profoundly disturbing and discouraging truths available to us today. Even that low-life Clinton maintained a good measure of the old-speak. It was Bush^2 who jarred us with the new, but the nation was so wound up in the aftermath of 9/11 that we collectively failed to take note of what was going on. By the time the UltraKlown was on the campaign trail, media was on board with his newspeak and regardless of what the common man may have thought, the frothing Obama was rammed through and here we are.

[osan]

So I am not totally sure of the facts outside of what I just read on Wikipedia. It looks like the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers in a German nightclub.


Note the bolded, italicized portion.


If the Libyan government sponsored a terrorist attack on US soldiers, why would it not be okay to retaliate? What is the argument against?

Your first question is problematic for you because it clearly presupposes that US soldiers belong in Germany on their respective missions. Why have you not asked yourself why is it OK for US soldiers to be present on hundreds of bases across the globe? You have clearly failed to look at the situation from the eyes of others. Consider the Russians - a race of people whom I despise to no end, not the least reason of which was the butchering of my family in the wake of WWII. If I set aside my personal bile and look at the world from their POV, it is at least possible to see reasons other than those officially handed down by US "authorities" as to why they built their massive nuclear arsenal. While it can and has been powerfully argued that the Soviets were seeking to take over the world and presented that brand of threat, what if by the wildest happenstance that turned out to be an utter lie? What if the Soviets had NO intentions of attacking us or anyone else? What if the arms race in which they became embroiled was more the result of their fears of what the USA/globalists were planning? If you allow yourself to shift your thoughts in such a way, the landscape changes dramatically.

Consider how the Soviets operated as evidence to support my possible alternative scenario. The bulk of their operations were covert. There is little doubt they were up to "no good", what with over 200 KGB assets operating at State alone in the 40s and 50s. But their operations were virtually ALL focused on establishing the internal rot that has since so successfully taken root in the USA. You're so very apparently winning - why, oh WHY would you jeopardize it all by building a vast arsenal representing giga-tons of destructive power in apparent provocation of the one nation able to throw it all back at you? Unless you were completely stupid or rabidly insane you would not. Much as I have disliked those pigs, I cannot find the least evidence of their having lost their intelligence or rationality. This directly implies that they were building their city busters for one primary reason: defense against US aggression that was and still does rampage across the face of the planet. That is enough to keep any nation's leadership up at night. The Soviets were SHIT SCARED of the USA, and with good reason as any nominally competent analysis will reveal in glowing neon.


Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion to go after terrorists.

Did he?



This is an attack by a government. Unless I have the facts wrong, the seems like about the most clear case of justified military force that I can think of.

And what if you do?