The "coalition" is already crumbling. Somebody call the CIC and get him back from his South American vacation. Obama was right on one thing ... this would only last a few days. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html
So basically, the Germans were willing to participate just so long as they didn't have to participate. Apparently Germany and France have swapped places. barfo
They are all a part of the "coalition" stronger than the Iraq War's coalition. Obama said so in a statement that he made without taking any questions, while he was on vacation in Brazil!
Western companies which owned Libyan oil fields have hated Khadaffi since he nationalized them to kept the profits within Libya. Now they're paying mercenaries to play the "rebel." The Chinese people must be befuddled by their government not vetoing the colonialist UN war in Libya., since China was itself a victim of colonialism. Putin, like the rest of the world, is shocked that Russia didn't veto. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-22-06-46-40 ------- As the CIA sets up its fake rebel government, the U. of Washington economics professor whom the CIA is making the rebel Secretary of the Treasury is incompetent. But the guy says no problem, we'll get it done, with billions from US taxpayers to fund the fake rebel movement. Like him, the fake rebel President is really just an American professor. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-23-20-59-59
So ... the "rebels" are funded by Al Qaeda? HooBoy... Of course, now the US claims they aren't, at least in an "organized" manner. Nice war we've started, here.
Obama's speech about our actions in Libya: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/28/exp.arena.zakaria.libya.speech.cnn?hpt=Mid He sells it as a limited intervention along the lines of Kosovo--the middle ground between doing nothing while people are slaughtered (a la Rwanda) and dropping a trillion bucks and thousands of American lives (a la Iraq). I've been pretty ambivalent about this venture, but I have to admit found the speech pretty convincing.
But my question is, why the United States? Why not France, Germany, or any of the other Allies? Why does the US have to get involved in every single NATO or UN conflict? We're already committed to two major conflicts, I don't see why we need a third, regardless if it's a middle-of-the-road less expensive one.
Well, Sarkozy and France actually took the lead on this one, until Obama stated last night that we took the lead, but the clean-up (of what, I ask?) will be for others. It was odd that he didn't even mention, let along clarify, the role of of the "rebels" in Libya, and exactly what is the source of their funding and membership. He also didn't mention Sarkozy, but doing so would have made his credit-taking even more absurd, so it was probably best that knowledge of the situation was left for the viewer, at least in terms of trying to score political points. It was all about Barry, as always, and he even took the time to criticize Bush and Clinton (not by name, but by the conflicts they initiated).
Renegades from the secular Khadaffi military are abandoning the movement, replaced by fanatics who hate America for religious reasons. The city of Darnah was a hotbed for volunteers to fight the US. in Afghanistan, and is now the core of fanaticism to fight the secular Khadaffi government. The main militant group exists only because Khadaffi had pardoned them. Now they seek to kill him. Darnah's revolutionary leader is a former bin Laden associate who fought the U.S. and now can barely stomach his new ally, America. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-of-reach-after-100mile-retreat-2256771.html
I'm not sure this is the kind of humanitarian aid President Obomba meant in speech on Libya. Can't find this Reuters article in our lame US media, but at least the Aussies have some integrity. DemocraticUnderground and FreeRepublic have it, but where are FoxNews, CNN, NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo? http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/...ans-dead-in-tripoli-strikes-vatican-official/ http://www.google.com/search?q=liby...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9806ae24d4306e76
Helping a revolution with an unknown end overthrow a known dictator is simply bad strategy. I hate that murderous fuck Qaddafi more than most, but I fear what may replace him. I'm not even sure if Libya should remain one country.
The last thing O-bomb-a wants is a protracted kinetic military action, and the American people aren't dumb enough as a whole to believe that we aren't pulling the strings of any NATO mission, along with the bulk of the funding. Quite the corner he's painted himself in, here. At least MLB is starting, though. Perhaps a quick trip to Cominskey Field to watch his beloved White Sox would be a much-needed break? I also notice that they have dropped the "kinetic military action" marketing phrase. It probably sounded fancy in the faculty lounge, but it must have been polling for shit in the real world.
well, to be fair he might have heard it from one of the generals. "Going kinetic" has been semi-code for switching from diplomacy to warheads-on-foreheads for a while.
Sometimes it's a bad strategy, sometimes it isn't. The strategy worked out pretty well for us in the Panama and Kosovo. I imagine we had some agents on the ground during the Philippines revolution too. Is there a more truly insane ruler anywhere on the planet? I'm serious. I honestly can't think of one. (Ok, maybe Kim Jung Il.) Maybe I have a limited imagination, but I'm really struggling to come up with a way to have a downgrade from Gaddafi. I'm not sure why we would want it to remain one country. It's very name was given to it by the Italians in 1934 when they owned it as their colony. If Yugoslavia showed us anything, it's that sometimes a country is better off not being a country.
