PDA

View Full Version : Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden



sappstuf
3/23/2011, 08:40 AM
Hmmmm

Adpa5kYUhCA

Turd_Ferguson
3/23/2011, 08:59 AM
Werd.

Aldebaran
3/23/2011, 09:05 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think conservatives are interested in limiting the authority of the President to carry out an expansively defined role of commander in chief.

Kucinich has b!tched about it. Maybe he'll lead the way for America.

pphilfran
3/23/2011, 09:07 AM
Is the world actually "At War" with Libya?

sappstuf
3/23/2011, 09:14 AM
Is the world actually "At War" with Libya?

Germany's not.. They already pulled out. I guess that is what happens when you start something and then head to the other side of the world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

However, Obama did say this:


'It is US policy that Gaddafi needs to go,' Obama said while visiting in Santiago, Chile. 'And we've got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.'

If Putin said that about Obama and then attacked the US, I'm pretty sure we would be at war.

Sooner98
3/23/2011, 09:16 AM
The President now has a (D) next to his name, so it's all good. :rolleyes:

TheHumanAlphabet
3/23/2011, 09:25 AM
I wonder when the Plagiarer in Chief will file the paper work to impeach Obummer?

JohnnyMack
3/23/2011, 09:42 AM
I thought he had 48 to inform Congress per the War Powers Resolution, which I understand he did.

olevetonahill
3/23/2011, 10:25 AM
Im pretty sure ANY Pres. can be Impeached for just about anything.

The Senate may not go along and Remove em tho.

1890MilesToNorman
3/23/2011, 10:33 AM
A did not have sexual relations with that dictator Gaddafi!

I believe him.

OU_Sooners75
3/23/2011, 10:52 AM
Pretty bad when your own party is the one throwing the biggest fit about all this.

First Kucinich and now Biden?

Poor Obama...your base is turning on you!

sappstuf
3/23/2011, 10:53 AM
I thought he had 48 to inform Congress per the War Powers Resolution, which I understand he did.

They also say this:


(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Under which of these did Obama's war against Ghaddafi fall under?

Mongo
3/23/2011, 11:04 AM
I thought he had 48 to inform Congress per the War Powers Resolution, which I understand he did.

Way to save face, somewhat. You are the poster child for anti-religion, Anti-WASP, anti-republican here at SF. You mouthed off so much during BO's campaign, and you have even admitted being wrong about that, yet you dont hold your dude in the same regard as you did W and are trying to justify it.

Champion BO's 48 hours all you want, but you havent laid waste or hold a deep hatred for the dems whom controlled the house and senate that passed the funding and the "good to go" on Iraq and afganny. Where was this justifying reasoning when W was in office?

I will still make love to you, but you spout as much rhetoric and bull**** as tuba, bill favor, and the surge of oui dooshes.

KantoSooner
3/23/2011, 11:17 AM
jeez people, chill out. Obama is doing an 'okay' job across the board and on foreign policy/military policy, repubs should not be dissatisfied with him....because he's essentially carrying out Bush's policies. (largely because they were more or less logical, and also because, once started, you can't really do a 180).
I don't think BO and I would have much agreement if debating political philosophy, but he's really not doing that bad a job as pres.
Who, precisely, right now, do we have who'd do better? Biden? Hillary? Huckamoron? Ron Paul? Palin? Boehner? Pellosi? We live in an era of midgets on the national political stage (not to mention on the state level). Obama is far from the worst we could have done.

The Profit
3/23/2011, 11:19 AM
Im pretty sure ANY Pres. can be Impeached for just about anything.

The Senate may not go along and Remove em tho.




This. It is very easy to impeach, but much more difficult to convict. Two presidents have been impeached for political purposes, but neither one was convicted. Had Nixon not quit in disgrace, he would definitely have been convicted, though.

Mongo
3/23/2011, 11:21 AM
jeez people, chill out. Obama is doing an 'okay' job across the board and on foreign policy/military policy, repubs should not be dissatisfied with him....because he's essentially carrying out Bush's policies. (largely because they were more or less logical, and also because, once started, you can't really do a 180).
I don't think BO and I would have much agreement if debating political philosophy, but he's really not doing that bad a job as pres.
Who, precisely, right now, do we have who'd do better? Biden? Hillary? Huckamoron? Ron Paul? Palin? Boehner? Pellosi? We live in an era of midgets on the national political stage (not to mention on the state level). Obama is far from the worst we could have done.

I dont think the bulk of it has to do with a hatred of O, it is the outright hypocrisy of that fool's actions and the O supporters justifying it. Like you said, he is carrying W's torch on the wars. So now they are acceptable since their boy is in office?

JohnnyMack
3/23/2011, 11:42 AM
Way to save face, somewhat. You are the poster child for anti-religion, Anti-WASP, anti-republican here at SF. You mouthed off so much during BO's campaign, and you have even admitted being wrong about that, yet you dont hold your dude in the same regard as you did W and are trying to justify it.

Champion BO's 48 hours all you want, but you havent laid waste or hold a deep hatred for the dems whom controlled the house and senate that passed the funding and the "good to go" on Iraq and afganny. Where was this justifying reasoning when W was in office?

I will still make love to you, but you spout as much rhetoric and bull**** as tuba, bill favor, and the surge of oui dooshes.

I wasn't championing anything, nor was I placing any sort of value judgment on the decision BHO made in terms of authorizing air strikes. I was simply saying that I didn't think his decision was an impeachable offense.

I do think there's a difference between a no-fly zone and airstrikes and a ground campaign like we saw in Iraq. The decision to go into Iraq was about stabilizing the region and giving us a permanent base of operations in the middle east. We tried to develop one in SA and the Al Qaeda folks weren't too keen on that and in turn flew some planes into some buildings for our efforts. W, seemingly not understanding the concept of causal relationships decides to push ahead with any scrap of intel he can find as a justification for war. He pushes headlong into the fertile crescent, spending thousands of lives and a trillion dollars while doing nothing at working towards strengthening our relationship with the countries of the ME so we can move beyond whitey hating the Muslims and the Muslims hating whitey.

Now back to Libya. No I don't think airstrikes against Libya were a good idea, but again, I don't think his decisions were an impeachable offense. I really don't understand what Obama is up to lately. He's effectively alienating himself from his own party as left wingers as radical as Farrakhan to the more centrist Jon Stewart can't seem to explain what he's doing. Obama is racing back towards the center, not (as some would argue) striving towards a new world order based on Marxism. He's making decisions that are trying to placate the moderate and independent voters who were the ones who got him elected in '08.

Recap:

Invading Iraq: Still a bad idea
Airstrikes against Libya: Still a bad idea
The U.S.'s Middle East Foreign Policy since WWII: A disaster

Mongo
3/23/2011, 12:01 PM
I wasn't championing anything, nor was I placing any sort of value judgment on the decision BHO made in terms of authorizing air strikes. I was simply saying that I didn't think his decision was an impeachable offense.

I do think there's a difference between a no-fly zone and airstrikes and a ground campaign like we saw in Iraq. The decision to go into Iraq was about stabilizing the region and giving us a permanent base of operations in the middle east. We tried to develop one in SA and the Al Qaeda folks weren't too keen on that and in turn flew some planes into some buildings for our efforts. W, seemingly not understanding the concept of causal relationships decides to push ahead with any scrap of intel he can find as a justification for war. He pushes headlong into the fertile crescent, spending thousands of lives and a trillion dollars while doing nothing at working towards strengthening our relationship with the countries of the ME so we can move beyond whitey hating the Muslims and the Muslims hating whitey.

Now back to Libya. No I don't think airstrikes against Libya were a good idea, but again, I don't think his decisions were an impeachable offense. I really don't understand what Obama is up to lately. He's effectively alienating himself from his own party as left wingers as radical as Farrakhan to the more centrist Jon Stewart can't seem to explain what he's doing. Obama is racing back towards the center, not (as some would argue) striving towards a new world order based on Marxism. He's making decisions that are trying to placate the moderate and independent voters who were the ones who got him elected in '08.

Recap:

Invading Iraq: Still a bad idea
Airstrikes against Libya: Still a bad idea
The U.S.'s Middle East Foreign Policy since WWII: A disaster

What time are we hooking up to 69 each other?

JohnnyMack
3/23/2011, 12:03 PM
Lemme stop and get a gyro at the mall and I'll be in the 2:40 showing of Red Riding Hood at the Promenade Mall. Top row, as usual.

Mongo
3/23/2011, 12:06 PM
I wouldnt expect anything different from the norm, puddin

sappstuf
3/23/2011, 12:09 PM
I really don't understand what Obama is up to lately. He's effectively alienating himself from his own party as left wingers as radical as Farrakhan to the more centrist Jon Stewart can't seem to explain what he's doing.

Yes.. Looking back, electing a community organizer with no executive experience as President of the most powerful country in the world may not have been wise.

picasso
3/23/2011, 12:11 PM
jeez people, chill out. Obama is doing an 'okay' job across the board and on foreign policy/military policy, repubs should not be dissatisfied with him....because he's essentially carrying out Bush's policies. (largely because they were more or less logical, and also because, once started, you can't really do a 180).
I don't think BO and I would have much agreement if debating political philosophy, but he's really not doing that bad a job as pres.
Who, precisely, right now, do we have who'd do better? Biden? Hillary? Huckamoron? Ron Paul? Palin? Boehner? Pellosi? We live in an era of midgets on the national political stage (not to mention on the state level). Obama is far from the worst we could have done.

He's doing a good job of not being around much.

dwarthog
3/23/2011, 12:12 PM
I dont think the bulk of it has to do with a hatred of O, it is the outright hypocrisy of that fool's actions and the O supporters justifying it. Like you said, he is carrying W's torch on the wars. So now they are acceptable since their boy is in office?

Exactly! :D

TheHumanAlphabet
3/23/2011, 12:47 PM
Who, precisely, right now, do we have who'd do better? Biden? Hillary? Huckamoron? Ron Paul? Palin? Boehner? Pellosi?

Any one of these you mentioned would do a better job, IMO: Huckaby, Paul, Palin and Boehner.

You could add: Bozo the clown, Tom and Jerry and the Staypuft marshmallow man as better choices than Obummer.

soonerscuba
3/23/2011, 12:50 PM
This thread went from sad to hot to sad really quickly.

SoonerNate
3/23/2011, 12:52 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't think conservatives are interested in limiting the authority of the President to carry out an expansively defined role of commander in chief.

Kucinich has b!tched about it. Maybe he'll lead the way for America.

He and Ron Paul seem to be the only consistent polys on these matters. You definitely have to give them both credit

Pricetag
3/23/2011, 12:56 PM
You could add: Bozo the clown, Tom and Jerry and the Staypuft marshmallow man as better choices than Obummer.
Didn't you already mention Palin above?

Turd_Ferguson
3/23/2011, 01:07 PM
Didn't you already mention Palin above?Punch'n on Palin, but noth'n about the one you elected eh? Typical.

OklahomaTuba
3/23/2011, 01:34 PM
Obama, de facto substituted Congressional authorization for that of UN and made the US military a tool of an international body. Now let it sink in for a second.

Impeach him.

Pricetag
3/23/2011, 02:52 PM
Punch'n on Palin, but noth'n about the one you elected eh? Typical.
Eh, I'm disappointed that President Obama is a typical Democrat and typical politician. There's nothing special about him other than he's the first non-100 percent white dude ever elected.

He'll have to earn my vote in 2012, but the Republicans had better bring it. They're already pissing people off, and they won't be able to just sit there and win everything like they did in 2010. I'm not confident that a candidate from another party will appear on the ballot here on Oklahoma.

AlboSooner
3/23/2011, 03:03 PM
There is hypocrisy involved here on part of the POTUS and vice-POTUS.
We are at war with Libya, and according to Obama and Biden, the POTUS can't do that.

The Profit
3/23/2011, 03:05 PM
There is hypocrisy involved here on part of the POTUS and vice-POTUS.
We are at war with Libya, and according to Obama and Biden, the POTUS can't do that.




Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq when Saddam was still in charge, and we were not at war with him. In fact, we should have kept the no-fly zone in place and never invaded. Look how much money would have been saved, and how many brave young Americans would still be with their families.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/23/2011, 03:07 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war.

I'm not going to call it a war, but I will be surprised if this doesn't go bigger than policing a "no-fly" zone...

sappstuf
3/23/2011, 03:09 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq when Saddam was still in charge, and we were not at war with him. In fact, we should have kept the no-fly zone in place and never invaded. Look how much money would have been saved, and how many brave young Americans would still be with their families.

The no-fly zone resulted from the way the first Gulf War ended. Which had approval from Congress...


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991

AlboSooner
3/23/2011, 03:11 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq when Saddam was still in charge, and we were not at war with him. In fact, we should have kept the no-fly zone in place and never invaded. Look how much money would have been saved, and how many brave young Americans would still be with their families.

Hey, we can play semantics all day. We are bombing them, killing their army guys, and they are shooting back trying to kill us. You can call it whatever you want; that's war. I don't know about Sadam, but right now we are at war with the state of Libya.

Mongo
3/23/2011, 03:17 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war.

Are allied planes launching flapjacks against the opposition planes and dropping gps guided cupcakes on rebels? A no fly is a dont **** around zone. Labeling it a war or not a war is simplistic.

JohnnyMack
3/23/2011, 03:20 PM
Are allied planes launching flapjacks against the opposition planes and dropping gps guided cupcakes on rebels? A no fly is a dont **** around zone. Labeling it a war or not a war is simplistic.

You smell like my balls.

The Profit
3/23/2011, 03:20 PM
I'm not going to call it a war, but I will be surprised if this doesn't go bigger than policing a "no-fly" zone...




The involvement of the United States of America will not go any further.

CrimsonCream
3/24/2011, 08:07 AM
Any one of these you mentioned would do a better job, IMO: Huckaby, Paul, Palin and Boehner.

You could add: Bozo the clown, Tom and Jerry and the Staypuft marshmallow man as better choices than Obummer.

He will go down as one of the worst Presidents in US history once the corrupt, biased media no longer has a vested interest in him. They then will not have to lie, distort, deceive, ignore, etc., for him.

He pretty much has everything f*cked up.

soonercruiser
3/24/2011, 04:36 PM
jeez people, chill out. Obama is doing an 'okay' job across the board and on foreign policy/military policy, repubs should not be dissatisfied with him....because he's essentially carrying out Bush's policies. (largely because they were more or less logical, and also because, once started, you can't really do a 180).
I don't think BO and I would have much agreement if debating political philosophy, but he's really not doing that bad a job as pres.
Who, precisely, right now, do we have who'd do better? Biden? Hillary? Huckamoron? Ron Paul? Palin? Boehner? Pellosi? We live in an era of midgets on the national political stage (not to mention on the state level). Obama is far from the worst we could have done.

Chill out yourself Kanto.
Sapp is merely pointing out the Demoncratic hypocrisy!
(Biden is quiet now, isn't he?)

soonercruiser
3/24/2011, 04:40 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq when Saddam was still in charge, and we were not at war with him. In fact, we should have kept the no-fly zone in place and never invaded. Look how much money would have been saved, and how many brave young Americans would still be with their families.

Simply a "No Fly Zone"?????
:rolleyes:
Ha! Just wait and see!

Fraggle145
3/24/2011, 05:11 PM
Not saying whether I think he was wrong or right, but even if he was impeached (which is a big IF), I doubt they'd be able to get the 2/3 to remove him from office.

REDREX
3/24/2011, 05:16 PM
Biden is an idiot

NormanPride
3/24/2011, 05:27 PM
Lemme stop and get a gyro at the mall and I'll be in the 2:40 showing of Red Riding Hood at the Promenade Mall. Top row, as usual.
****, that was you guys? You're loud, and someone sucks at giving head.

Blue
3/24/2011, 05:35 PM
Wrong....a simple no-fly zone is hardly a war. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq when Saddam was still in charge, and we were not at war with him. In fact, we should have kept the no-fly zone in place and never invaded. Look how much money would have been saved, and how many brave young Americans would still be with their families.

We've dropped 100+ bombs on them but that's not a war?

olevetonahill
3/24/2011, 05:38 PM
All Politicians are idiots, To some of us

FIFY

jkjsooner
3/24/2011, 07:41 PM
We've dropped 100+ bombs on them but that's not a war?

We occasionally bombed Iraq during the period between the Gulf Wars. The only reason we didn't bomb them more is because Hussein's ability to counter a no fly zone ws pretty much destroyed during the first Gulf War but when the need arose we did bomb them.

jkjsooner
3/24/2011, 07:52 PM
They also say this:



Under which of these did Obama's war against Ghaddafi fall under?

Does the bombing of a Berlin night club that happened to kill a couple of US soldiers constitute, "(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. "

I think that would be a stretch by anyone's definition.

I would also point out that the Bush administration asserted its right to go to war with Iraq with or without congressional approval. He got it but was willing to proceed without it.

JohnnyMack
3/24/2011, 08:08 PM
****, that was you guys? You're loud, and someone sucks at giving head.

That was Mongo. He has a mouth full of cold sores, making it difficult for him to perform to his usual standards. You should probably get a shot or something.

ouwasp
3/24/2011, 08:38 PM
BHO won't get impeached, not for this.

Anytime USA bombs are raining on moslems, I'm pretty much okay with that. Too bad this half-a**ed "coalition" couldn't have been pieced together about 10 days earlier than it was; Khadafy, the killer of Pan Am 103, may very well be roasting with Saddam by now.

But as it is, this looks to be an open-ended snafu. An expensive one.

pphilfran
3/24/2011, 09:10 PM
BHO won't get impeached, not for this.

Anytime USA bombs are raining on moslems, I'm pretty much okay with that. Too bad this half-a**ed "coalition" couldn't have been pieced together about 10 days earlier than it was; Khadafy, the killer of Pan Am 103, may very well be roasting with Saddam by now.

But as it is, this looks to be an open-ended snafu. An expensive one.

It took time to get UN approval...and no way in hell were we going in without UN support...

A lot of logistics was needed to launch a hundred plus cruise missiles...

IMO they went about as fast as they could....

With that said I wish we had stayed out...

sooner ngintunr
3/24/2011, 09:12 PM
We've dropped 100+ bombs on them but that's not a war?

They were only missiles not bombs. If we bomb 'em it might be considered war, but only if the president says so, right now its only a humanitarian mission.

No need to play semantics.














;)

sappstuf
3/24/2011, 10:09 PM
It took time to get UN approval...and no way in hell were we going in without UN support...

A lot of logistics was needed to launch a hundred plus cruise missiles...

IMO they went about as fast as they could....

With that said I wish we had stayed out...

Phil I love you like a brother, but the Navy could launch a hundred cruise missiles at any country in the Med in probably 24-36 hours max if it wanted to. Maybe two hundred just to prove the point.. ;)

The delay was not the UN either..

This was from an ABC story on March 19th about the previous Tuesday the 14th.


Presented with intelligence [on Tuesday] about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team “what we’re doing isn’t stopping him.”

Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasn’t until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn’t be enough.

Already skeptical that a no-fly zone would not have enough of an impact given all the ground attacks, the president met with his national security team from 4:10 pm ET to 5:10 pm ET and asked for more military and diplomatic options, sources tell ABC News…

Rice was instructed to broaden the UN Security Council resolution offered by Lebanon to permit more military might, allowing for the international coalition to stop not just Libyan planes but other Libyan assets such as tanks.


The President wasn't prepared to consider an actual attack until the evening of Tuesday the 14th. He then sent Rice back to the UN to get approval for it. The UN voted on the measure on 17 March. Operation Odyssey Dawn began on the 19th.

I won't say where the delay was out of respect, but looking at the timeline, it looks pretty clear to me.

sappstuf
3/24/2011, 10:46 PM
Does the bombing of a Berlin night club that happened to kill a couple of US soldiers constitute, "(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. "

I think that would be a stretch by anyone's definition.

I would also point out that the Bush administration asserted its right to go to war with Iraq with or without congressional approval. He got it but was willing to proceed without it.

It didn't just happen. They were specifically targeted by a country that had a history of attacking American assets.

And yes, any time our military forces are directly targeted for attack by a foreign country I would consider that an emergency that needs to be responded to immediately.

SoonerKnight
3/25/2011, 02:50 AM
I thought he had 48 to inform Congress per the War Powers Resolution, which I understand he did.

Limited in scope which this is and he don't gotta say shat besides that resolution if tested would never stand!!

SoonerKnight
3/25/2011, 02:59 AM
Obama, de facto substituted Congressional authorization for that of UN and made the US military a tool of an international body. Now let it sink in for a second.

Impeach him.


Except he didn't!!!!! We are not at war with Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan! We haven't declared a war since Dec 7, 1941! Therefore he did not do anything wrong there Bubba!! Settle down just cuz he's a democrat doesn't mean you get to impeach him!! :rolleyes:

pphilfran
3/25/2011, 05:43 AM
Phil I love you like a brother, but the Navy could launch a hundred cruise missiles at any country in the Med in probably 24-36 hours max if it wanted to. Maybe two hundred just to prove the point.. ;)

The delay was not the UN either..

This was from an ABC story on March 19th about the previous Tuesday the 14th.



The President wasn't prepared to consider an actual attack until the evening of Tuesday the 14th. He then sent Rice back to the UN to get approval for it. The UN voted on the measure on 17 March. Operation Odyssey Dawn began on the 19th.

I won't say where the delay was out of respect, but looking at the timeline, it looks pretty clear to me.

The Arab League didn't ask for support until March 12th...UN passed no fly zone on March 17th...First air strikes on the 19th...multiple sanctions prior to the No Fly Zone...


The administration did right by waiting for UN approval...not everyone was in agreement on the UN resolution (and still aren't)...and it appears that the UN was willing to wait until the Arab League asked for help...I don't see where there was a hell of a lot of opportunity to start this mess any earlier...

Feb 15/16 - A riot in Benghazi is triggered by the arrest of human rights activist Fethi Tarbel, who has worked to free political prisoners, Quryna newspaper says.

February 17 - Activists designate this day as a day of rage. It is the anniversary of clashes in 2006 in Benghazi when security forces killed protesters attacking the city's Italian consulate.

Feb 21 - Diplomats at Libya's mission to the United Nations side with the revolt against their country's leader and call on the Libyan army to help overthrow "the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi."

February 22 - A defiant Gaddafi vows to die "a martyr" in Libya and says he will crush a revolt which has seen eastern regions break free from four decades of his rule.

February 24 - Anti-Libyan government militias take control of Misrata after evicting forces loyal to Gaddafi.

February 26 - The U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on Gaddafi and his family, and refers Libya's crackdown on rebels to the International Criminal Court.

February 28 - EU governments approve a package of sanctions against Gaddafi and his closest advisers including an arms embargo and bans on travel to the bloc.

-- Gaddafi refuses to acknowledge the protests in the streets of Tripoli, saying all Libyans love him.

March 1 - The U.N. General Assembly unanimously suspends Libya's membership of the U.N. Human Rights Council because of violence against protesters by forces loyal to Gaddafi.

March 5 - The national council meets in Benghazi and declares itself sole representative for Libya.

March 10 - Warplanes sent by forces loyal to Gaddafi bomb the oil town of Brega, extending attacks deeper into rebel-held territory in the east of Libya, rebels report.

-- Gaddafi takes back control of Zawiyah, about 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli.

-- France recognizes the Libyan National Council, the rebel body fighting to oust Gaddafi, as the legitimate representative of Libya's people, the first country to make such a move.

March 11 - Libya suspends diplomatic relations with France.

March 12 - The Arab League calls for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. A meeting in Cairo decides that "serious crimes and great violations" committed by the Gaddafi government against his people have stripped it of legitimacy.

March 16 - Forces loyal to Gaddafi are near rebel-held Benghazi and "everything will be over in 48 hours," Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam tells France-based TV channel Euronews.

March 17 - The U.N. Security Council votes to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" -- code for military action -- to protect civilians against Gaddafi's army.

March 19 - The first air strikes halt the advance of Gaddafi's forces on Benghazi and target Libya's air defenses.

Pricetag
3/25/2011, 09:42 AM
Except he didn't!!!!! We are not at war with Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan! We haven't declared a war since Dec 7, 1941! Therefore he did not do anything wrong there Bubba!! Settle down just cuz he's a democrat doesn't mean you get to impeach him!! :rolleyes:
He's also the WORST PRESIDENT EVAR!!!!!?!?!?!

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 09:47 AM
Limited in scope which this is and he don't gotta say shat besides that resolution if tested would never stand!!

Make Love, Not Time-Limited, Scope-Limited Military Actions

:rolleyes:

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 10:23 AM
The Arab League didn't ask for support until March 12th...UN passed no fly zone on March 17th...First air strikes on the 19th...multiple sanctions prior to the No Fly Zone...


The administration did right by waiting for UN approval...not everyone was in agreement on the UN resolution (and still aren't)...and it appears that the UN was willing to wait until the Arab League asked for help...I don't see where there was a hell of a lot of opportunity to start this mess any earlier...

Feb 15/16 - A riot in Benghazi is triggered by the arrest of human rights activist Fethi Tarbel, who has worked to free political prisoners, Quryna newspaper says.

February 17 - Activists designate this day as a day of rage. It is the anniversary of clashes in 2006 in Benghazi when security forces killed protesters attacking the city's Italian consulate.

Feb 21 - Diplomats at Libya's mission to the United Nations side with the revolt against their country's leader and call on the Libyan army to help overthrow "the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi."

February 22 - A defiant Gaddafi vows to die "a martyr" in Libya and says he will crush a revolt which has seen eastern regions break free from four decades of his rule.

February 24 - Anti-Libyan government militias take control of Misrata after evicting forces loyal to Gaddafi.

February 26 - The U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on Gaddafi and his family, and refers Libya's crackdown on rebels to the International Criminal Court.

February 28 - EU governments approve a package of sanctions against Gaddafi and his closest advisers including an arms embargo and bans on travel to the bloc.

-- Gaddafi refuses to acknowledge the protests in the streets of Tripoli, saying all Libyans love him.

March 1 - The U.N. General Assembly unanimously suspends Libya's membership of the U.N. Human Rights Council because of violence against protesters by forces loyal to Gaddafi.

March 5 - The national council meets in Benghazi and declares itself sole representative for Libya.

March 10 - Warplanes sent by forces loyal to Gaddafi bomb the oil town of Brega, extending attacks deeper into rebel-held territory in the east of Libya, rebels report.

-- Gaddafi takes back control of Zawiyah, about 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli.

-- France recognizes the Libyan National Council, the rebel body fighting to oust Gaddafi, as the legitimate representative of Libya's people, the first country to make such a move.

March 11 - Libya suspends diplomatic relations with France.

March 12 - The Arab League calls for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. A meeting in Cairo decides that "serious crimes and great violations" committed by the Gaddafi government against his people have stripped it of legitimacy.

March 16 - Forces loyal to Gaddafi are near rebel-held Benghazi and "everything will be over in 48 hours," Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam tells France-based TV channel Euronews.

March 17 - The U.N. Security Council votes to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" -- code for military action -- to protect civilians against Gaddafi's army.

March 19 - The first air strikes halt the advance of Gaddafi's forces on Benghazi and target Libya's air defenses.


I couldn't care less what the Arab league wanted and I know that you don't either. Them taking exactly one day to complain about the attacks tells me all I need to know about them.

But even they passed a no fly zone a week before the attacks. The UN didn't do anything until it heard what we wanted to do. Obama didn't make his mind up until very late in the game. Almost too late.

Obama wants to think that all nations are alike and we are just another member of a coalition of nations. But it just isn't the truth. The world looks to the US to take the lead. The UN cannot enforce a lunch line without the help of the US. If Obama had asked for a no fly zone a week earlier he would have gotten it. The UN had passed sanctions and suspend Libya membership more than two weeks earlier. There was nothing else the UN could do but wait for the US to say they would enforce a no-fly zone.

The US was not waiting for the UN, the UN was waiting for the US.

The Profit
3/25/2011, 10:37 AM
He's also the WORST PRESIDENT EVAR!!!!!?!?!?!




No, Dubya and his cousins Cal Coolidge and Warren Harding will hold that title at as trio for centuries to come. We can all be happy that Texas got its idiot back.

okie52
3/25/2011, 10:53 AM
I couldn't care less what the Arab league wanted and I know that you don't either. Them taking exactly one day to complain about the attacks tells me all I need to know about them.

But even they passed a no fly zone a week before the attacks. The UN didn't do anything until it heard what we wanted to do. Obama didn't make his mind up until very late in the game. Almost too late.

Obama wants to think that all nations are alike and we are just another member of a coalition of nations. But it just isn't the truth. The world looks to the US to take the lead. The UN cannot enforce a lunch line without the help of the US. If Obama had asked for a no fly zone a week earlier he would have gotten it. The UN had passed sanctions and suspend Libya membership more than two weeks earlier. There was nothing else the UN could do but wait for the US to say they would enforce a no-fly zone.

The US was not waiting for the UN, the UN was waiting for the US.

There seems to be some insensitivity here Sapp. Perhaps you might want to review the many times the ME has helped us out.

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 11:03 AM
There seems to be some insensitivity here Sapp. Perhaps you might want to review the many times the ME has helped us out.

Ha.. I would be happy if they would just help themselves.

Krauthammer put it pretty well this morning..


Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.

okie52
3/25/2011, 11:17 AM
Ha.. I would be happy if they would just help themselves.

Krauthammer put it pretty this morning..

Perhaps if we give our "illegal immigrant fighting force" a path to citizenship
we can be in a lot of wars that normally would be unpalatable.

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 12:58 PM
Perhaps if we give our "illegal immigrant fighting force" a path to citizenship
we can be in a lot of wars that normally would be unpalatable.

Just don't give them catapults..

soonercruiser
3/25/2011, 02:55 PM
No, Dubya and his cousins Cal Coolidge and Warren Harding will hold that title at as trio for centuries to come. We can all be happy that Texas got its idiot back.

Now, if only Chicago would take its idiotS back!
:rolleyes:

AlboSooner
3/25/2011, 03:05 PM
I am glad that our involvement is winding down, and we're passing this to NATO. The POTUS has kept his word so far.

pphilfran
3/25/2011, 03:09 PM
I am glad that our involvement is winding down, and we're passing this to NATO. The POTUS has kept his word so far.

The beginning of the end?

Or...

The end of the beginning?

I got a nagging feeling it is the beginning of the beginning...

REDREX
3/25/2011, 03:15 PM
No, Dubya and his cousins Cal Coolidge and Warren Harding will hold that title at as trio for centuries to come. We can all be happy that Texas got its idiot back.--- I am looking forward to Chicago getting theirs back

The Profit
3/25/2011, 03:27 PM
--- I am looking forward to Chicago getting theirs back





They will in 6 years.

SoonerBorn68
3/25/2011, 05:02 PM
1.5 years. It's over for the community oganizer. Hopefully he'll be in leg irons before that.

texaspokieokie
3/25/2011, 05:02 PM
They will in 6 years.

seems more like a "loss" than a "profit".

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 06:14 PM
I am glad that our involvement is winding down, and we're passing this to NATO. The POTUS has kept his word so far.

That is like General Motors passing responsibility to Buick.....

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 07:53 PM
Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-25-19-07-00)

Better late than never??
:O

sappstuf
3/25/2011, 08:24 PM
yAyCdfOXvec

My favorite part..


So Obama is killing civilians in a preemptive, unfunded, undeclared war for oil promoted by the dictators of the Arab league along with the UN in support of some unidentified rebels whom he has never met with and you are fine with all of that?

soonercruiser
3/25/2011, 09:29 PM
The beginning of the end?

Or...

The end of the beginning?

I got a nagging feeling it is the beginning of the beginning...

As a military vet with aircraft control experience, Phil....
The Warthog pictures on the TV the last couple of days doesn't paint apicture of a withdrawing commitment.
They are used as tank killers; anti-chopper; and go after ground troops.
(close in attack weapon)
This is well beyond just a "No Fly Zone".

soonercruiser
3/25/2011, 09:30 PM
seems more like a "loss" than a "profit".

:D

AlboSooner
3/26/2011, 02:29 AM
That is like General Motors passing responsibility to Buick.....

Your personal dislike for the president clouded your judgement on this one.

REDREX
3/26/2011, 09:42 AM
They will in 6 years.---So you agree that Obama is an idiot

cccasooner2
3/26/2011, 10:19 AM
---So you agree that Obama is an idiot

His lordship missed a few in the BB brackets, so yes he is now an idiot.

AlboSooner
3/26/2011, 10:57 AM
In Tripoli, a distressed woman reached a hotel where foreign journalists are staying, and told them she had been detained for two days by pro-Gaddafi forces and gang-raped after being stopped at a checkpoint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658


CNN has disturbing video of the woman coming into the hotel crying and screaming, and Libyan officials came and took her beating her up.

sappstuf
3/27/2011, 11:30 AM
Your personal dislike for the president clouded your judgement on this one.

SECDEF Gates was asked this morning if Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to Libya this morning. This was his response:


“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about.

So no threat..

Clinton was asked why Congressional approval was not gotten prior to the attacks. Here is her response:


“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

So if the international community says it is okay, then there is no need for Congress to be involved? That is nonsense. And that phrase "unilateral action" is clearly a shot at Bush, don't you think?

We know that the Party of Science sometimes has trouble with math, so lets see how awesomely multinational this coalition is, shall we?


The Cable compiled a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war…

To simplify it for you, this is the smallest coalition in the past 20 years. Wouldn't the smaller amount of countries involved make it a more unilateral action? So much for Obama being the international bridge builder..

Well at least we will be getting rid of Qaddafi, and I am sure that Obama has done his homework on these rebels that he is basically guaranteeing to win, by not only enforcing a no fly zone, but destroying all of Qaddafi's tanks and other assets needed to fight. They must be good guys right?


Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Brilliant.

Well at least this will all be over in days and then it won't matter anymore.


US officials: Libyan operation could last months

U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

Clearly it is MY judgement that is clouded in this matter....

soonercruiser
3/27/2011, 11:55 AM
Huh!

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Obama/Obama%20justify%20war.jpg

diverdog
3/27/2011, 10:07 PM
Surprised this has not come up:


Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747–121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.[1] Eleven people in Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, were also killed as large sections of the plane fell in the town and destroyed several houses, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the news media has named the event the Lockerbie bombing.
On 24 February 2011, resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.[2]

AlboSooner
3/27/2011, 10:19 PM
Sapp,
your copy pasta skills are impressive. I didn't object to the copy pasta you brought us here. Let me bring this down a few notches; you are answering something I didn't ask or object to.

Here's a very basic way to look at it:
Me: US turned the mission over to NATO and other countries.
You: It's like GM turning things over to Buick.
Me: Your hatred for POTUS clouded your judgement, as the international community doesn't have the GM-Buick relationship with US. I'm sure you must know that.
You: Here are some unrelated links.



Clearly it is MY judgement that is clouded
Finally, something we agree on.

soonercruiser
3/27/2011, 10:54 PM
Surprised this has not come up:

Not sure why not.
I assumed that it might not be worthy of mention, since it is just one guy squealing. Most of the "talking heads" essentially say that it was asumed that Daffy was tied in all along.

soonercruiser
3/27/2011, 11:00 PM
Sappie,
your copy pasta skills are impressive. I didn't object to the copy pasta you impressively brought us here. Let me bring this down a few notches; you are answering something I didn't ask or object to.

Here's a very basic way to look at it, I'm sure it's helpful:
Me: US turned the mission over to NATO and other countries.
You: It's like GM turning things over to Buick.
Me: Your hatred for POTUS clouded your judgement, as the international community doesn't have the GM-Buick relationship with US. I'm sure you must know that.
You: Here are some unrelated links.

Finally, something we agree on.

Albo,
I'm not sure anyone is going to be impressed by that exchange.
EVERYONE knows that we can say that the "leadership" is officially turned over to someone else; but, the main assets, and most of the mission unique assets will always be from the U.S.
Take the U.S. out, and the whole situation changes.

sappstuf
3/29/2011, 01:01 PM
Sapp,
your copy pasta skills are impressive. I didn't object to the copy pasta you brought us here. Let me bring this down a few notches; you are answering something I didn't ask or object to.

Here's a very basic way to look at it:
Me: US turned the mission over to NATO and other countries.
You: It's like GM turning things over to Buick.
Me: Your hatred for POTUS clouded your judgement, as the international community doesn't have the GM-Buick relationship with US. I'm sure you must know that.
You: Here are some unrelated links.


I wouldn't want the facts of the situation to blow up your current world view..

I wonder what the AP thinks about Obama's position?


In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6d d0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

Man that sounds like what I said 4 days ago. I'm glad at least someone is catching on...

I would ask you who the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO is and what country he is from, but hopefully you would just ignore the question because otherwise your head might explode from reality setting in...