Libya

#1
utgibbs

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#1
Three months into the campaign, looks like another military disaster in the making for NATO. Who is going to skewer Sarkozy? the radical reactionary Cameron? Fortunately for the latter, the Murdoch clan, despite all their past misdeeds, has slipped so comically on the NotW banana peel.

I believe I mentioned - three months ago - it would be a lot more difficult to prize Qaddafi out of Tripoli. I've been out of the game awhile, but anyone steeped in the real world outside the back door could have predicted the same.

The "genocide" fiction has been dispelled. The mass rape charges also now known to be propaganda straight out of Benghazi.

Has Obama pulled an Eisenhower? In 1956, Ike told the British, French, and Israelis to get the hell back to their borders and stop the attacks on Suez (mostly because he wasn't informed of the plan). Secretary Gates was quite scathing in his finale in Brussels.

Such is the dance to the tune of Late Capitalism, its force, energy, and legitimacy expended. It gives me hope the misgivings that our own police state will descend further into despotism are misplaced. This colonial smash and grab has gone horribly wrong; one wonders if Big Brother could actually be mobilized competently.
 
#2
#2
Last I heard, Qaddafi is running out of fuel and cash. It didn't sound like his resistance could last another 6 months.
 
#3
#3
Gibby, I'm going to have to agree with much of what you
say.

Not intending to feed IP and Mg's paranoia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created
to counter the Soviet threat of a takeover of western
Europe, a real possibility at the time.

Even before, at the end of WWI they might have tried
such a move but the Poles stood in the way.

BTW, if not for the Poles, Vienna would now be an
islamic city, much like Istanbul, formerly Constantinoble,
wonder what it's name would be and if it's mayor
could speak Austrian??

At the end of WWII the Soviets did extend their control
over much of eastern Europe.

Since they are no longer a threat, NATO has outlived
it's usfulness. What does Afghanistan have to do with
the North Atlantic?

Under the same UN mandate with which NATO is making
war on Libya, the rightful government of the Ivory Coast
has been overthrown but who cares about Africa south of the Sahara anyway, unless we can facilitate some
marxist or moslem rule?

Maybe the UN should partition Libya, that has worked
so well in the past, like in Korea and Vietnam.

Clinton said we would be out of the Balkans within a
year, guess what, we're still there and have more troops
at the Korean border (about 30,000) than we have on
our own southern border (about what? 1,500) and the
'police action' in Korea resulted in our presence there
now for 60 years.

Ron Paul starts to make more sense when you start
considering the real facts.

obamaisraelcartoon.jpg


Suggestion, archive IP's post and show it to him a few
years down the road when al-qaeda still hasn't been
able to dislodge Quackdaffy.

He is in no danger of running out of funds.
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
Last I heard, Qaddafi is running out of fuel and cash. It didn't sound like his resistance could last another 6 months.
Click to expand...

Last I heard from Secretary Gates, “The mightiest military alliance in history, is . . . into an operation against a poorly-armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference..." and further quite ominously, "future U.S. political leaders . . . may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.”

His parting shots in Brussels. :hi:

Moreover, I believe when I spoke three months ago that it would not be easy, I was told I was wrong (if you can believe); that he would be gone in a week, blah, blah, blah....
 
#5
#5
War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber - National Review Online


Western leaders had forgotten that Qaddafi lost a war with Egypt in 1977, lost a war with Chad in 1987, and came out on the losing end of Ronald Reagan’s bombing campaign in 1986 — and yet clung to power and remains the planet’s longest-ruling dictator. Terror, oil, cash reserves, and a loyal mercenary army are a potent combination.
And they don't mention the heck of a gold reserve he has.

Obama is going on with it though, by recognizing a 'transitional' government that hails from the most productive recruiting region of terrorists that have fought American and Nato troops in Iraq and Hitlery is freeing up about 20b of Quackdaffy's confiscated funds to turn over to the rebels.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#6
#6
gsvol,

Yes, Benghazi has been a fertile ground for terrorist recruits / organization. Supporting such groups has been a constant of US foreign policy for some time.
 
#7
#7
utgibbs said:
gsvol,

Yes, Benghazi has been a fertile ground for terrorist recruits / organization. Supporting such groups has been a constant of US foreign policy for some time.
Click to expand...

At least since WWII and then Harvard was a big
supporter of Hitler up until WWII and he advanced
Islam more than any man since Saladin.

So much for that superior Ivy League education.

"The argument that the two parties should represent
opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the
Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea
acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical,
so that the American people can throw the rascals
out at any election without leading to any profound
or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be
possible to replace it, every four years if necessary,
by the other party, which will be none of these
things but will still pursue, with new vigor,
approximately the same basic policies."
Quigley
 
#9
#9
Gadaffi gave Goldman Sachs $1.3/billion cash to manage.

They hedged it. They lost 98% of his dollars. First they
tried to fob him off with less than 50 cents/dollar and
he turned it down. Then they tried to fob him off with
$5/billion in Goldman Sachs stocks (worthless).

Gadaffi wasn’t into playing patty cake games with them
because he knew that they got bailout money that
should’ve covered him dollar for dollar. He demanded
his money be replaced.

A few days later, Obamajaad FINALLY decides (after
whisper in his ear from Goldman Sachs, one of his
biggest contributors) OK, Gadaffi needs to step down
or die. Ka Boom!

And that’s just part of the deal. Now we find out
these banks are carrying $34/billion of Gadaffi’s
frozen assets.

Just this last week, Hillary makes the announcement
they’re meeting with Libya’s new ‘government’ that
we all know is al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah aka the
Moslem Brotherhood and VOILA! They’re going to start
giving them access to Gadaffi’s $34/Billion to set
up and run their government. A little bit at the time
of course...

Isn’t that all just ‘special’?
 
#10
#10
utgibbs said:
Last I heard from Secretary Gates, “The mightiest military alliance in history, is . . . into an operation against a poorly-armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference..." and further quite ominously, "future U.S. political leaders . . . may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.”

His parting shots in Brussels. :hi:

Moreover, I believe when I spoke three months ago that it would not be easy, I was told I was wrong (if you can believe); that he would be gone in a week, blah, blah, blah....
Click to expand...

Show me the post saying we would be gone in a week. I dare you.
 
#11
#11
IPorange said:
Show me the post saying we would be gone in a week. I dare you.
Click to expand...

I remember Obama the candidate talking about countries like Iran, NorKo, Libya as being "tiny countries" that the US "would squash like bugs" if kinetic military actions against them ever became necessary.
 
#12
#12
IPorange said:
Show me the post saying we would be gone in a week. I dare you.
Click to expand...

Maybe not specifically but here was the clear indication from the POTUS that this would be a quickie - less than an month.

'Days, not weeks' should haunt Obama - USATODAY.com

Libya Crisis: Obama Gives Moammar Gadhafi Ultimatum - ABC News


Now I guess the wiggle room is that we would only be "directly involved" for that time then later as a "support" role. I would suggest we are directly involved still.

Hard to argue that what was sold is a quick in and out and that isn't at all what has happened.
 
#13
#13
gsvol said:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created
to counter the Soviet threat of a takeover of western
Europe, a real possibility at the time.

Even before, at the end of WWI they might have tried
such a move but the Poles stood in the way.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to argue that the Bolsheviks who had completely rid Russia of any type of expeditionary force in 1919, were a threat to takeover Western Europe?

You do know that as all the major players in Europe, sans the Bolsheviks, were in Versailles to work on the peace deal after "the war to end all wars", the Poles, without provocation, attacked the Russians in a territorial land grab? You know this, correct?

I am not surprised that you are a Palin fan as you both have a penchant for skewing and misstating history.
 
#15
#15
Did people really think Libya would be flying a different flag? I would really hope not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html
The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.

Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse - Telegraph

The flag, complete with Arabic script reading "there is no God but Allah" and full moon underneath, was seen flying above the Benghazi courthouse building, considered to be the seat of the revolution, according to the news website Vice.com.
 
#17
#17
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/oliver-north/sideshow-and-sabotage.html

Here are just three of the issues that won't be addressed by those sipping French wine and munching on canapes during their revelry on the Riviera:

In Libya, secret stockpiles of chemical weapons are being found on a nearly daily basis. That's being taken by some as a good sign. It's not. In 2004, Moammar Gadhafi famously promised then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he would "turn in" his weapons of mass destruction. We believed him. International inspectors — dispatched from the U.S., NATO and the U.N. — verified that the Libyan dictator had indeed done as asked. We now know it wasn't true. We also know that 20,000 or more man-portable surface-to-air missiles are missing from Gadhafi's arms depots. One would hope that the economic consequences of just one of these weapons bringing down a commercial airliner might be on the agenda in Cannes. But it's not.

The hasty withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq has emboldened pro-Iranian Shiite factions in the Land Between the Rivers. Thousands of Iraqis who have helped U.S. forces with intelligence collection, civil affairs and translation services are trying desperately to get out of their country — not unlike the final days of the Vietnam War. Desertions from Iraq's armed forces have spiked since Obama announced the pullout on Oct. 21. It might be logical to assume the world leaders frolicking in France might take note of the economic consequences should the government in Baghdad prove unable to protect the country's oil infrastructure. But it's not on the agenda.

In Iran, Iraq's neighbor to the east, support for radical Islamic terror and efforts to acquire a nuclear arsenal continue unabated, despite hollow promises of "tougher sanctions" by the so-called international community. Israel — facing an existential threat from the ayatollahs' atomic weapons — took the extraordinary step of demonstrating how it could respond to an attack by test-firing one of its own nuclear-capable ICBMs this week. The Fars News Agency — an organ of Tehran's despotic regime — simply noted: "These arrogant threats have no credibility or value to us." Unfortunately, that's true. Though the leaders of the world's leading economies may not be talking about it, the ayatollahs are committed to an Armageddon-like end-of-the-world scenario far more devastating than anything that can be altered by a bailout. But this isn't up for review on the Riviera.

And in case it still matters to any of our "economic partners" in Cannes — or the present occupants of the White House — Nov. 4 marks the 32nd anniversary of the U.S. Embassy's being sacked in Tehran and the start of a horrific 444-day ordeal for 52 American hostages.

George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." True. But those who ignore the present sabotage our children's future.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top