Imagine if STING was Sting? Wouldn't that be a mind fuck.
U.S. and Allies Strike Libya
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Imagine if we took the time to answer people's questions instead of ignoring them and frustrating everyone.
"Please post how I have ignored people.
Please post an example of me frustrating everyone."
Please post an example of me frustrating everyone."
Pfan, the ignore button is an option.
i'm sorry, was there a point to this? if there's not that's cool... but it seemed as if you were trying to make a point, so i was just wondering.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
Can we talk about Libya?
Gaddahfi needs to go. Now.
Gaddahfi needs to go. Now.
Jeannieco
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Whoa. That was horrifying to read.....
poor woman.
poor woman.
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
The article refers to him as "the Libyan rebel leader..." so is this guy in charge of all the rebel forces? In which case....
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Parents: Attacked Libyan Woman Held at Gadhafi HQ - ABC News
The mother says she received a phone call Monday from an unidentified caller, purportedly from the Gadhafi camp, telling her al-Obeidi is held at the Tripoli compound and asking her to instruct her daughter to change the rape claim in return for freedom and other benefits.
"Whatever you ask for, you will get: build a new house or get the money," the mother said the caller offered.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim claimed in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday that al-Obeidi was a prostitute who has since her out burst at the Rixos Hotel been freed and is staying with her sister in Tripoli.
In the Al-Jazeera interview, the father held forth a photograph he said showed al-Obeidi graduating from Law School. He said she was pursuing a postgraduate degree.
The mother says she received a phone call Monday from an unidentified caller, purportedly from the Gadhafi camp, telling her al-Obeidi is held at the Tripoli compound and asking her to instruct her daughter to change the rape claim in return for freedom and other benefits.
"Whatever you ask for, you will get: build a new house or get the money," the mother said the caller offered.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim claimed in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday that al-Obeidi was a prostitute who has since her out burst at the Rixos Hotel been freed and is staying with her sister in Tripoli.
In the Al-Jazeera interview, the father held forth a photograph he said showed al-Obeidi graduating from Law School. He said she was pursuing a postgraduate degree.
kramwest1
has a
I'm more okay with the U.S.' role in Libya since it is now a NATO operation.
I still don't understand Bush's role with Gadhafi. It's hard to find clear info right now with so many bloggers and such spewing on both sides.
Gadhafi targeted Americans in ordering the bombing of Pan Am 103. I'm not sure if/how he ever stopped being an enemy of the U.S.
Does this mean we should take him out? No, but he's far from our friend, too.
I still don't understand Bush's role with Gadhafi. It's hard to find clear info right now with so many bloggers and such spewing on both sides.
Gadhafi targeted Americans in ordering the bombing of Pan Am 103. I'm not sure if/how he ever stopped being an enemy of the U.S.
Does this mean we should take him out? No, but he's far from our friend, too.
There are some rumblings about tacitly accepted shipments of arms for the rebels despite the official arms embargo.
That's one way to protect civilians, I guess. My worry is that our role in prolonging this civil war ultimately causes more deaths than would have occurred at Benghazi, but at a slower rate, meaning the true impact never bubbles to the surface.
That's one way to protect civilians, I guess. My worry is that our role in prolonging this civil war ultimately causes more deaths than would have occurred at Benghazi, but at a slower rate, meaning the true impact never bubbles to the surface.
i'd have a lot more respect for obama if he had gotten up there last night and said something along the lines of "look... of course this is about oil. it always is. republican, democrat... it doesn't matter. until we as a society is able to give up our addiction to this black shit, we're always going to get involved when a major producer has some sort of unrest. 
it is what it is. all these other countries aren't sitting on trillions of dollars with of crude. don't like it? start taking fucking mass transit. until then shut the fuck up and leave me alone..."
it is what it is. all these other countries aren't sitting on trillions of dollars with of crude. don't like it? start taking fucking mass transit. until then shut the fuck up and leave me alone..."
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I'm not ok with it at all, I think it's a big mistake. I tried to watch what he had to say last night but at a certain point it just sounded like a bunch of meaningless blah, blah, blah to me. Disappointing. It reminded me of that other guy 
This is what President Obama said in 2007-so what was the actual or imminent threat to the US this time?
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
This is what President Obama said in 2007-so what was the actual or imminent threat to the US this time?
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
last night proved without a shadow of a doubt what i already knew... obama is just another politician who's more than capable of looking us in the eye and lying right to our face. he considers the american people stupid, largely because a lot of us are, and will believe whatever he says if he says it in a sincere enough way.
but then again i knew this when i voted for him.
this isn't iraq. we aren't going to tripoli. the end goals are not the same. but the reasons behind it? yea... exactly the same. if libya didn't have lots and lots of oil, we wouldn't be doing this. syria is right next to iraq. a rush of refugees flooding over the borders into iraq would be an issue, just like refugees heading into egypt would be. syria doesn't have a shit ton of oil. they've only got a little bit of oil. we won't be going to syria.
but then again i knew this when i voted for him.
this isn't iraq. we aren't going to tripoli. the end goals are not the same. but the reasons behind it? yea... exactly the same. if libya didn't have lots and lots of oil, we wouldn't be doing this. syria is right next to iraq. a rush of refugees flooding over the borders into iraq would be an issue, just like refugees heading into egypt would be. syria doesn't have a shit ton of oil. they've only got a little bit of oil. we won't be going to syria.
Devil's advocate
It might be perhaps a bit unfair to compare Iran and Libya as like circumstances. Given the spectre of Iraq that clouded any discussion of Iran at the time, I presume Obama meant that unilateral military intervention may be permissible in the case of an actual or imminent threat to the US, and given the spectre of Iraq that was clouding discussion of Iran at the time, I think it's safe to say that the type of military intervention being hypothetically discussed would be more resource intensive than the operation in Libya.
In the case of Libya, the U.S. wasn't even the chief proponent of military intervention, is only one member of a fairly broad coalition, backed even by the Arab League (doubt you'd get that for a military intervention in Iran), and is essentially providing a support role.
It might be perhaps a bit unfair to compare Iran and Libya as like circumstances. Given the spectre of Iraq that clouded any discussion of Iran at the time, I presume Obama meant that unilateral military intervention may be permissible in the case of an actual or imminent threat to the US, and given the spectre of Iraq that was clouding discussion of Iran at the time, I think it's safe to say that the type of military intervention being hypothetically discussed would be more resource intensive than the operation in Libya.
In the case of Libya, the U.S. wasn't even the chief proponent of military intervention, is only one member of a fairly broad coalition, backed even by the Arab League (doubt you'd get that for a military intervention in Iran), and is essentially providing a support role.
kramwest1
has a
This is what I keep coming back to.
In my book, he still has done more good than bad in his first two years. And, that is the best I have to go by. (Wall Street and top income earners tax cuts still piss me off)
Not that Libya couldn't take a shit-turn into quagmirehood, but for kudos to Obama for making sure the U.N. and NATO have a healthy portion of the responsibility.
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
The U.S. gets less than 2% of its oil from Libya, I believe.
Now Britain France and Italy on the other hand... I can see a case to be made for them.
What I don't get though is that if this is indeed about oil, why would they want to help the opposition out, who are essentially creating more chaos in the country? Without intervention, the rebels would have been crushed and the status quo would stay the same. I assume they're riding on a pro-western government coming to power (more oil, better prices) but that's a BIG risk they're taking.
I think different countries are in it for different reasons. Europe = oil, U.S. = protection of civilians/not to look bad, Arab League/Arab countries = regional stability, protection of Muslims and the fact that Gaddahfi is just as much an infidel as we are.
Now Britain France and Italy on the other hand... I can see a case to be made for them.
What I don't get though is that if this is indeed about oil, why would they want to help the opposition out, who are essentially creating more chaos in the country? Without intervention, the rebels would have been crushed and the status quo would stay the same. I assume they're riding on a pro-western government coming to power (more oil, better prices) but that's a BIG risk they're taking.
I think different countries are in it for different reasons. Europe = oil, U.S. = protection of civilians/not to look bad, Arab League/Arab countries = regional stability, protection of Muslims and the fact that Gaddahfi is just as much an infidel as we are.
come on... the US was pressured into getting involved in this by europe. they were not the ones who were out in front.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
We live in a political world
Love don’t have any place
We’re living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don’t have a face
We live in a political world
Icicles hanging down
Wedding bells ring and angels sing
Clouds cover up the ground
We live in a political world
Wisdom is thrown into jail
It rots in a cell, is misguided as hell
Leaving no one to pick up a trail
~Bob Dylan
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
I think your skepticism of Obama's motives are warranted, however my view on this statement is that there is way too much cynicism involved.
I think he was mostly sincere in explaining the intervention in Libya. What you have there is a perfect storm of international support, heartfelt pleas from the Libyan people (military and civil), and nearly unprecedented support from the Arab League.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no way he would have involved America in this if oil was the only, or even primary, consideration.
Basstrap said:
Disagree.
So we'll be going to these other countries next then, right? No?
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
It's only oil, and Libya is an easy target politically and militarily. You need months to years to get any action on humanitarian grounds. That's only ever happened once or twice ever, and the action is usually too little, too late. Deliberately restrained, hugely reluctant. Way too late. This kind of fast turnaround? Humanitarian concerns are there, sure, but it is in no way why this is being done. It is entirely about the oil. It means nothing to the US, but means a lot to European countries, particularly the UK, who have significant investments there. And the US owes those countries, big time. After Afghanistan and Iraq, the least the US can do is stick its neck out just an inch for especially the UK.
Politically, 'humanitarian' gets them in domestically, and the fact that everyone hates Gaddafi gets them in internationally. But it was the threat of a grinding, messy civil war, a conflict that had already shut down the oilfields, sending the tens of thousands of people who work on them already scattering for the borders and the airports, with the possibility of them even sliding out of the hands of those overseas with the ownership or leasing and becoming a tool in a war, or nationalised or something... nup. Can't wait for it to get too messy, or drag on too long, where something naked like a pure protection-of-oil-fields plan might be necessary. Get in now under the cover of "Can't stand by and watch another Rwanda happen!" The good news? Pretty easy country to crack, militarily. Not much of a fight, and most of the hard work is done by others on the ground. They just want it to settle. They wouldn't really care who is coming in to take charge, just as long as it settles. Do what they can to get a rebel win, or set them up for one. Send the workers back in, fire up the oilfields. All good.
And the unanimous Arab League vote cleared the path by giving it legitimacy, but it just shows up how bullshit all of this is. Half those countries turned around and shot up their own protesters the very next day. Humanitarian concerns? Ha ha, the what now? Oh, see the hated Gaddafi take a few cruise missiles? Yay! Would they vote the same way against anyone else? Certainly not.
And so this draws a line in the sand? Libya is the example to the rest of the Middle East (and the world?) telling them how far is too far? Really? My guess is that the line is here for Libya (Dickhead!), but it will be waaay over there for someone like Iran (jeez, a proper fight, yikes!), and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there for someone like Saudi Arabia (Mon cherie amour! Chin up tiger!)
Politically, 'humanitarian' gets them in domestically, and the fact that everyone hates Gaddafi gets them in internationally. But it was the threat of a grinding, messy civil war, a conflict that had already shut down the oilfields, sending the tens of thousands of people who work on them already scattering for the borders and the airports, with the possibility of them even sliding out of the hands of those overseas with the ownership or leasing and becoming a tool in a war, or nationalised or something... nup. Can't wait for it to get too messy, or drag on too long, where something naked like a pure protection-of-oil-fields plan might be necessary. Get in now under the cover of "Can't stand by and watch another Rwanda happen!" The good news? Pretty easy country to crack, militarily. Not much of a fight, and most of the hard work is done by others on the ground. They just want it to settle. They wouldn't really care who is coming in to take charge, just as long as it settles. Do what they can to get a rebel win, or set them up for one. Send the workers back in, fire up the oilfields. All good.
And the unanimous Arab League vote cleared the path by giving it legitimacy, but it just shows up how bullshit all of this is. Half those countries turned around and shot up their own protesters the very next day. Humanitarian concerns? Ha ha, the what now? Oh, see the hated Gaddafi take a few cruise missiles? Yay! Would they vote the same way against anyone else? Certainly not.
And so this draws a line in the sand? Libya is the example to the rest of the Middle East (and the world?) telling them how far is too far? Really? My guess is that the line is here for Libya (Dickhead!), but it will be waaay over there for someone like Iran (jeez, a proper fight, yikes!), and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there for someone like Saudi Arabia (Mon cherie amour! Chin up tiger!)
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
this. when you are a president trying to repair the damage done by 8 years of unilateralist drunken sailors wrecking havoc in the Muslim world, it's difficult to underestimate the importance of getting the Arab League on board for something (especially yet another adventure in the desert).
I defended Iraq in the beginning... largely out of a post 9/11 respect for how W handled the immediate aftermath of that day. I was wrong. Dead wrong. We never should have gone there.
We're currently going dead ass broke. We already have two wars, only one of which carries any sort of legitimacy. Even if this was strictly for humanitarian reasons, which I don't believe for a second, we shouldn't be involved.
This is a time where we should be saying to the international community "hey... guys... we're gonna sit this one out. We've got our own shit to deal with. We'll be back in a few, but yea... you're on your own for a few years. Try anything stupid and we'll fucking stomp you out, but yea... peace out. See ya when we see ya."
We're currently going dead ass broke. We already have two wars, only one of which carries any sort of legitimacy. Even if this was strictly for humanitarian reasons, which I don't believe for a second, we shouldn't be involved.
This is a time where we should be saying to the international community "hey... guys... we're gonna sit this one out. We've got our own shit to deal with. We'll be back in a few, but yea... you're on your own for a few years. Try anything stupid and we'll fucking stomp you out, but yea... peace out. See ya when we see ya."
kramwest1
has a
Obama could (he fucking won't), but he could say, "Hey, you know all of you companies that have business in Libya, yeah, we're gonna need you to cough up a little to cover this. Call it a 'war' tax. I'm looking at you, oil companies. You're for peace, patriotism and humanitarian causes, right?"
Make it like the Spanish-American War tax that lasted around 100 years.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
No matter how much or how little oil the US gets from Libya it is still increasing gas prices-which has a domino effect in so many other aspects of the economy. A poll just came out today talking about how people are increasingly pessimistic about the economy- because of gas prices and food prices and other prices going up.
Similar threads
