SEC=UGA Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 From what I can tell, from reading an article in Reuters, we've stopped the airstrikes and cruise missile attacks on Libya. With our help the rebels had pushed forward about 200 miles and "took" about 4 or 5 rather large cities. Now, within the past two days, they have been decimated and pushed back to their starting point and are currently outflanked and pretty well pinned up against the coast. Seemingly they're about to get slaughtered... What it appears that we have done is stoked a fire and left it to burn on its own. Public sentiment, an outcry if you will, was lamenting our actions in Libya so we have pulled back, leaving the rebels caught with their pants around their ankles and Quadaffi extra pissed off at the west. Not only have we alienated our "allies" in Libya but have presumably pissed off the head muslim in charge, this should end well. Hooray!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 Hmmmm... (Reuters) - Intelligence on the rebels battling Libya's Muammar Gaddafi has shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence, NATO's operations commander said, but U.S. officials said there were no indications militant groups are playing a significant role in Libya. "We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces," Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, said in testimony to a U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday. But several national security officials quickly and firmly denied that al Qaeda or Hezbollah were significantly involved. "If anyone thinks there are vast numbers of al-Qaeda terrorists running the rebel movement in Libya, then Churchill never smoked a cigar in his life," one of the officials said. "No one's saying there isn't a relative smattering of bad guys in Libya. After all, there always have been goons in the country," the official told Reuters. "But let's get real here. This is, at its core, an anti-Gaddafi uprising rooted in major opposition to a repressive regime that has brutalized its own people for decades." U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice agreed that any al Qaeda involvement with the rebels was limited. Asked whether she had seen any evidence to support Stavridis' assessment, Rice told Fox News: "I would like to think I'm reading much of the same stuff and no." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made clear the wisps of information on al Qaeda and Hezbollah that Stavridis had alluded to were not based on hard intelligence. "We do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this, but of course, we're still getting to know those who are leading the Transitional National Council," she said in London after a conference on Libya. Gaddafi's troops on Tuesday reversed the westward charge of rebel forces as world powers met in London more than a week after the United States and other nations launched a military campaign aimed at protecting Libyan civilians. "SMALL NUMBERS" "Think in terms of very small numbers of Libyan rebels being affiliated with al-Qaeda," a U.S. official familiar with internal government reporting told Reuters. "While there are some limited connections, don't think that the rebels are somehow being led by al Qaeda. That's just not the case." Even as the rebels struggle against Gaddafi's better-armed, better-organized troops, Stavridis said the Libyan leader was likely to go if the coalition brought a range of military power to bear against him. "If we work all the elements of power, we have a more than reasonable chance of Gaddafi leaving, because the entire international community is arrayed against him," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 This is very much a revolt powered by the good citizens of the country and is supported by the masses that have been fed up with their dictator for decades. My best buddy at work was born and raised in Libya, and his entire family is still in Tripoli. I've been following this situation from afar for 5-6 years now. As far as I can tell, the people we are helping are the "good guys". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 This is very much a revolt powered by the good citizens of the country and is supported by the masses that have been fed up with their dictator for decades. My best buddy at work was born and raised in Libya, and his entire family is still in Tripoli. I've been following this situation from afar for 5-6 years now. As far as I can tell, the people we are helping are the "good guys". We helped the good guys in Afghanistan against the Russian bad guys. That didn't turn out all that well. The best laid plans of mice and men.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 Why have we seemingly stopped helping them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Why have we seemingly stopped helping them? According to my buddy, we have bombed everything we can bomb carefully without injuring a number of civilians. We don't want to send ground troops. We are now discussing sending weapons to the rebels. We're hoping to take out enough of Ghadafi's weaponry to allow the rebels to do the groundwork for themselves. I'm sure we'll do more in a few days if the rebels still aren't able to break the stronghold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What is Newt's solution today so I can tell what the wrong answer is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 This is nothing more than helping out our European allied oil interests. If you do the research, you will find that 75% of the oil interest in Lybia is European. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Public sentiment, an outcry if you will, was lamenting our actions in Libya so we have pulled back..... Really? We've pulled back in Libya because of the public "outcry"? That must of been some outcry. I must of missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Really? We've pulled back in Libya because of the public "outcry"? That must of been some outcry. I must of missed it. I'm sorry you weren't paying attention? The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades. You got anything of substance to add? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 What is Newt's solution today so I can tell what the wrong answer is? If you could dig it up for me I will read it and then pass judgment on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Here is the other funny part... The open minded left in here like to make remarks, remarks that are void of any substance or thought and are filled with a preconception and condecension that is palpable. Edited March 31, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Here is the other funny part... The open minded left in here like to make remarks, remarks that are void of any substance or thought and are filled with a preconception and condecension that is palpable. Oh irony, thy name is SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Oh irony, thy name is SEC=UGA Now I know yer fishing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Public sentiment, an outcry if you will, was lamenting our actions in Libya so we have pulled back That had nothing to do with why we pulled back. And I agree with Joe...just because they created a poll of 1000 people, and only 47% were in favor of the action....does not equate to "public outcry". In fact, I've never ever seen a poll dictate what an outcry is. Interesting choice of words you used...and don't get defensive because someone called you on it. While the "open minded left in here like to make remarks, remarks that are void of any substance or thought and are filled with a preconception and condecension that is palpable"....the right sure likes to exaggerate to the point of lying to try to make their point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Really? We've pulled back in Libya because of the public "outcry"? That must of been some outcry. I must of missed it. The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades. I'm sorry you weren't paying attention? You got anything of substance to add? If you think that the President addresses the nation with his plan for Libya on Monday and then pulls back on Tuesday and Wednesday based on the numbers in that Gallup poll that you refer to as an "outcry" by the public then you're the one not paying attention. I ask again, where is the "outcry"? Please don't tell me you think that the Gallup poll that you pointed to is what is dictating the President's policy in Libya. Do you have anything of substance to prove your claim the President has abandoned the rebels based on public opinion? I'm not sold on your "public outcry" theory. Give me something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 That had nothing to do with why we pulled back. And I agree with Joe...just because they created a poll of 1000 people, and only 47% were in favor of the action....does not equate to "public outcry". In fact, I've never ever seen a poll dictate what an outcry is. Interesting choice of words you used...and don't get defensive because someone called you on it. While the "open minded left in here like to make remarks, remarks that are void of any substance or thought and are filled with a preconception and condecension that is palpable"....the right sure likes to exaggerate to the point of lying to try to make their point. There have already been organized protests, by the left, with regard to our action in Libya. Democrat politicians have excoriated the president for his decisions on Libya. Lef tleaning blogs and "news" outlets have posted their objections to this action and so have many on the right. If there were no outcry, no sense that this action was unpopular then why in the name of god did he feel necessary to jump in front of the cameras as quickly as he could to set out his argument for the actions that he had taken in Libya? If it was all good and fine, without a murmur from the public or members of his own party, why even bother addressing lobbing a few cruise missiles and flying a few sorties over some third world nation? And you guys with this whole "lying" thing, jeesus, get over it already, at what point was I lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I thought we stopped bombing because there wasn't any real targets left to bomb (tanks and such). The news this morning said that the Qaddafi troops were using regular truck type vehicles so they look the same as the rebels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 There have already been organized protests, by the left, with regard to our action in Libya. Democrat politicians have excoriated the president for his decisions on Libya. Lef tleaning blogs and "news" outlets have posted their objections to this action and so have many on the right. If there were no outcry, no sense that this action was unpopular then why in the name of god did he feel necessary to jump in front of the cameras as quickly as he could to set out his argument for the actions that he had taken in Libya? If it was all good and fine, without a murmur from the public or members of his own party, why even bother addressing lobbing a few cruise missiles and flying a few sorties over some third world nation? And you guys with this whole "lying" thing, jeesus, get over it already, at what point was I lying. If Obama had said nothing, you'd be all over him like a cheap suit for not informing the American people. The Republicans, represented by the twin pillars of sanity known as Palin and Bachmann, already have hammered him for "declaring war" on his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 If Obama had said nothing, you'd be all over him like a cheap suit for not informing the American people. The Republicans, represented by the twin pillars of sanity known as Palin and Bachmann, already have hammered him for "declaring war" on his own. Nah, I really wouldn't. I don't think that, outside of the healthcare debate, you can find anywhere that I have been "all over" Obama on much of anything that he has done or not done. I tend to agree with how he has handled Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, his extension of the tax cuts, etc... I have issues with the manner in which he has handled healthcare, the patriot act, and certain actions with regard to bail out funds. You got the wrong guy if you're looking to paint someone as a reactionary to all things Obama. I'm not really all that opposed to our actions in Libya, I just find it kinda of hughmourous that we take initiative, spend a billion dollars (or damn near it) helping out rebels and then when they are being pushed back, losing the ground that they had gained, we seem to be sitting on the sidelines bideing our time. If the rebels fail in their overthrow of the Qadaffi we have some serious issues that will result from said failure. But, hey, that is just one man's opinion. And you (using "you" in a general sense) ask for some substance behind my assertions that we may have curtailed our activity due to public perception; historically Democrats are notorious poll watchers, Clinton made a science out of it regarding his policy moves. Obama does much the same, these guys are marketing gurus. If they see a poll (usually a number of them) that show public perception is slipping then they will martial all of their efforts in crafting a strategy to meet the desires of the people. The only area in which I feel that they have disregarded polling in this administration is on the HC debate, at least they stuck to their morals on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If you could dig it up for me I will read it and then pass judgment on it. Which week's opinion of teh solution do you want. The weeks where he calls for action or the weeks where he bashed Obama for taking action? The president is right, it is a turd sandwich. We know one side is lead a murderous scumbag who paid someone to blow up a high school buddy of mine. We know the other side doesn't like that guys side. I think time will tell that the relative hands-off approach we took in Egypt was the right move. Apparently, the violenece in Lybia will not afford us that option. See Karzi and Al-Yawar Only 47% favor action because we aren't sure the guys we want to side with are worth of our siding with. It is a legitimate concern. Iraq and Afghanistan should have at least taught us to not be in a rush to determine who our friends are and that none of the candiates are going to look particularly good. Apparently, given the precedent set by the last administration, the alternative to lmitied engagement is invasion, occupation, liberation and a decade plus of rebuilding on the back of teh American taxpayer. In that regard, a slow, calculated approach seems reasonable. If limited air strikes and CIA operatives can effect a change in Lybia that benefits the United States, then isn't that preferrable to Operation Lybian Freedom? I think the only answer to that question is yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I heard on the news last night that this little toe dip in the Libyan cesspool cost us a billion dollars. I also watched a report about the crumbling infrastructure of our own country (unsafe bridges). Lots of jobs and taxes from a billion dollars for infrastructure. Lots of little American kiddies with meals in their tummies and bridge collapse-free trips to the daycare. But hey, if we can help some conglomeration of rebels with unknown agenda's topple a nutjob dictator in an unstable region, I say little Johnny can go hungry for awhile, and Mommy should be driving a Hummer to survive any highway catastrophe's in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Which week's opinion of teh solution do you want. The weeks where he calls for action or the weeks where he bashed Obama for taking action? The president is right, it is a turd sandwich. We know one side is lead a murderous scumbag who paid someone to blow up a high school buddy of mine. We know the other side doesn't like that guys side. I think time will tell that the relative hands-off approach we took in Egypt was the right move. Apparently, the violenece in Lybia will not afford us that option. See Karzi and Al-Yawar Only 47% favor action because we aren't sure the guys we want to side with are worth of our siding with. It is a legitimate concern. Iraq and Afghanistan should have at least taught us to not be in a rush to determine who our friends are and that none of the candiates are going to look particularly good. Apparently, given the precedent set by the last administration, the alternative to lmitied engagement is invasion, occupation, liberation and a decade plus of rebuilding on the back of teh American taxpayer. In that regard, a slow, calculated approach seems reasonable. If limited air strikes and CIA operatives can effect a change in Lybia that benefits the United States, then isn't that preferrable to Operation Lybian Freedom? I think the only answer to that question is yes. That's all I was asking for. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 I heard on the news last night that this little toe dip in the Libyan cesspool cost us a billion dollars. I also watched a report about the crumbling infrastructure of our own country (unsafe bridges). Lots of jobs and taxes from a billion dollars for infrastructure. Lots of little American kiddies with meals in their tummies and bridge collapse-free trips to the daycare. But hey, if we can help some conglomeration of rebels with unknown agenda's topple a nutjob dictator in an unstable region, I say little Johnny can go hungry for awhile, and Mommy should be driving a Hummer to survive any highway catastrophe's in the first place. I'm not really concerned about the little kiddies, they should have been the victims of partial birth abortions prior to being extracted from their mother's filthy womb. Too early? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I thought we stopped bombing because there wasn't any real targets left to bomb (tanks and such). The news this morning said that the Qaddafi troops were using regular truck type vehicles so they look the same as the rebels. That's exactly why we stopped the air assault. The only way to continue at this point would be a ground attack. Of course, its chic to think that "public outcry" is the real reason the US changed its military tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.