Why did the USA ...
- Thread starter Fairmount
- Start date
ImnoMensa
New Member
Because Hillary Clinton ,Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers, called Obama while he was on vacation and told him it would be a good idea.
Obama didnt have anything else to do that day and gave the order.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
Pushrod
Patriot
Because George Soros told him to, to support Soros's US hating rebels attacking the Libyan government.
The more I think on the situation, the more I think its a set up to make Hillary look bad and alienate her from the Dems. He'll say he was fed false info and it will slide off him like teflon.
Toxick
Splat
Clearly it was for cheap oil.
And because our government hates brown skinned peoples.
Mongo53
New Member
Did anyone notice Momar Kadduafi killing his own people in the streets in order to hold onto power? Lets drop conspiracy theories of power plays within our own government. Regardless of how much I dislike Hillary Clinton, it appears she is trying her best to do the right thing here. While Obama is being a Palo-Liberal trying triangulate the best he can and still stay consistent with all the patronizing attitudes and actions he has been pushing over the years.
The fact that we've waited a month as the slaughter went on unabated is shameful. But, we have a bit of an excuse with 2 wars going on at the time.
The fact that the United Nations couldn't reach a deal until this point to resolve to do something, is proof of how ineffectual the organization is.
The same for NATO and European powers. Although NATO has an excuse, that this is NOT what NATO is for.
The fact that Mid-East Nations are now complaining we are overstepping the very limited and ineffectual measures that were agred upon, while they are NOT doing anything themselves, could be no better proof of why the mid-east is so messed up.
Sorry, to NOT choose sides till its all over and then pick the winning side, regardless of their benovalence or malevonance, is cowardice that leaves a bad taste in most Americans mouth.
Standing principle is tempting, but we are NOT in a position right now to provide the resources or distract from 2 other wars going on. You'd think some of the mid-east nations would step up, but that would require some courage and vision that would lead that region out of its choas.
Acting in a pragmatic way, I see as the only solution if we are too lead this, which Obama is content to abvicate any leadership, regardless how ineffectual the alternatives may be. Of course we will try to chart the path that will do the least harm and produce the least distasteful of nothing but distasteful choices. Which will be turned around by all the Contrarians in our own country as an intentional course of action to exploit that nation and its people, which the mid-east will pick up on and continue the mantra. Although, people stupid enough to believe in the "War for Oil" slogans are myopic enough to NOT believe the same thing when its a liberal in charge, so we've been spared that.
Its just frustrating that it is NOT acknowledged that is now proven those charges were all shameless lies and hold the people that push those things accountable.
The fact that we've waited a month as the slaughter went on unabated is shameful. But, we have a bit of an excuse with 2 wars going on at the time.
The fact that the United Nations couldn't reach a deal until this point to resolve to do something, is proof of how ineffectual the organization is.
The same for NATO and European powers. Although NATO has an excuse, that this is NOT what NATO is for.
The fact that Mid-East Nations are now complaining we are overstepping the very limited and ineffectual measures that were agred upon, while they are NOT doing anything themselves, could be no better proof of why the mid-east is so messed up.
Sorry, to NOT choose sides till its all over and then pick the winning side, regardless of their benovalence or malevonance, is cowardice that leaves a bad taste in most Americans mouth.
Standing principle is tempting, but we are NOT in a position right now to provide the resources or distract from 2 other wars going on. You'd think some of the mid-east nations would step up, but that would require some courage and vision that would lead that region out of its choas.
Acting in a pragmatic way, I see as the only solution if we are too lead this, which Obama is content to abvicate any leadership, regardless how ineffectual the alternatives may be. Of course we will try to chart the path that will do the least harm and produce the least distasteful of nothing but distasteful choices. Which will be turned around by all the Contrarians in our own country as an intentional course of action to exploit that nation and its people, which the mid-east will pick up on and continue the mantra. Although, people stupid enough to believe in the "War for Oil" slogans are myopic enough to NOT believe the same thing when its a liberal in charge, so we've been spared that.
Its just frustrating that it is NOT acknowledged that is now proven those charges were all shameless lies and hold the people that push those things accountable.
Last edited:
Mongo53
New Member
Obama didn't intervene in Egypt, which has no oil, but we are intervening in Libya which does have Oil.
What does that tell you?
Well, I know the facts so it tells me nothing other than anyone that pushes such ideas is either grossly ingorant or a shameless demagogue.
Funny, how when Obama is president, the left and the media can see that distinction, but when Bush is president, they can't?
Oh, and if we abandon Israel, because we don't stand on Principle enough in the mid-east, but just in the case of Israel we should NOT stand on principle, we need to only stand on our interest. Thus abandoning Israel would have resulted in Libya never happening? Well how?
Oh, thats right, things wouldn't be bad in the mid-east, if those people just like us, and the biggest reason they don't like us, is becuase of Israel. So obvously abandoning Israel would create this love for us and the whole Libya thing would be solved. Yea, OK.
The Best thing
That could happen is, his own party is successful at impeaching him. We should have been in there when the rebels were approaching Tripoli. I've spent many months off the coast of Libya and this is way over due. We just have the wrong person in office to see it through.
That could happen is, his own party is successful at impeaching him. We should have been in there when the rebels were approaching Tripoli. I've spent many months off the coast of Libya and this is way over due. We just have the wrong person in office to see it through.
Pushrod
Patriot
How in the hell is it our responsibility to police the world? This was an internal conflict in a sovereign nation. It was not our concern! These people that were being killed were also rebels rebelling against the current regime. Khadafi can burn in hell for all I care, but until he commits a direct or indirect attack against the U.S., our Constitution does not authorize us to use force against him!
Send aid and weapons to the rebels if we feel we must (which I don't condone either as they hate the US as much as the current govenment in Lybia does), but we do not engage in military action for internal civil wars within a sovereign nation!
Mongo53
New Member
It's NOT our Responsibility to police the world, and people that claim that are intellectually dishonest. Many see it as the repsonibility of civilized people to confront evil and NOT ignore it. In so much, as it is an evil and stability in that region is in the interest of our country, does make it our concern. It is NOT cut and dry, and there are arguments NOT to take military action.
Um, War Powers Act..., yes, it can be seen as an abvication of responsibilty by the Congress, it is the guindance for military action defining the details, that the very vague mention in the constitution to "Declare War" as the authority of congress. It is in place and seen for years as the constitutional authority for military action of an offensive nature. This is why Presidents and Congress's have sought and got Congressional Resolutions in the past, an endorsement from the Congress to act. It gets very complex, because other nations in the world have done the same and do NOT formally declare war anymore, like done in the past. You'll find the international law and LOAC (a.k.a.Genevia Conventions are written that you do NOT need to make a formal declaration of war). Whether you like it or NOT, nations do NOT formally declare war on each other anymore; but the civilized nations do meet the standard of the L.O.A.C. (a.k.a. Geneva Conventions) before commencing hostilities.
Did Clinton get a Congressional Resolution for his Airwar in Kosovo? Its seems only Democrats have taken military action without Congressional Resolutions, I'd have to examine that closer.
I would be perfectly happy to stay out of Libya and have the Militaries of the Mid-East Nations confront this evil; but as you have seen; their governments vascilate in the face of evil and now they are expressing concern that we are doing to much to remove Kaudaffi.
We see the same thing from Europe, although slow to respond, at least the french are willing to step up somewhat, where that region has ties with French Colonization.
Everything you've said, can also apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, with Afghanistan only colluding with a stateless organization that directly attacked the U.S.
Like always, it comes down to, if the U.S. doesn't do it, it never gets done.
As far as, Impeaching Obama, all I've seen is a tiny group of the most die-hard leftist in Congress have raised a ruckus and want to impeach Obama on baseless grounds, the same way they did with Bush. So yea, Kosinsich and his merry band of elected Nut Jobs are 100% consistent, but its 100% consistently crazy. What has the rest of the Democrats in Congress have to say, the repbulicans? Its been pretty quiet, I've seen silence from the Dems, and tepid, reserved endorsement from the GOP.
Reservation I can see, like always in the mid-east, most choices turn out worst then the bad choice you have now. And the reserved intervention is probably wise because of that. I think everyone involved wants it to be obvious they just tried to stop Kaudaffi's slaughter, anything else that happens, is NOT their responsibility. Like that is going to stop the Contrarians from blaming the U.S. for what ever happens.
ImnoMensa
New Member
You ask what Republicans have to say about impeachment.
Republicans wouldnt say crap if they had a mouthful.
I have never seen a mandate given Republicans so wasted in my lifetime.
The Republican party is nothing more than a wing of the Democrat party.
Mongo53
New Member
Are we NOT talking about Libya?
Republicans don't say crap about Impeachment, because its a bogus, stupid, baseless claim by nutjobs, just like when Bush was president and Republicans said crap about it then also, 100% consistent.
Republicans weren't given a mandate to bomb Libya.
If Republicans were a wing of the Democratic Party, they would be Demagoguing current events against the president, screaming ignorant slogans and putting their own political ambitions over the interest of the Nation as a whole.
Now if your dissatisfied with the Republicans mandate to address overspending by the government, that would be a different thread to start. I would agree with you, but hold out some reservation they are charting an evasive course to contend with their margin thin majority just in the house that is easily vetoed, and an slanted MSM that will do everything to portray them as the bad guy. They are going to have to rope-a-dope with Obama, otherwise, the MSM will start a non-stop mantra that its all the "Radical Republican" fault, with slanted one-sided, out of context coverage that ignores most of the signficant facts.