What Is Wrong With This Picture ?

honeybunny

Pursuit Driver
What is wrong with this picture ?

:BH :BH :BH


US May Supply Gaddafi Rebels With Weapons


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-US-May-Arm-Anti-Gaddafi-Rebels-And-Looking-At-Legality-After-UN-Resolutions-Sky-News-Learns/Article/201103415959909?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15959909_Libya%3A_US_May_Arm_Anti-Gaddafi_Rebels_And_Looking_At_Legality_After_UN_Resolutions%2C_Sky_News_Learns


Libyan Rebel Commander Admits His Fighters Have al-Qaeda Links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
 
The rebel leader himself fought coalition forces in Afghanistan. Obama should have done his homework prior to committing US military assistance for the UN's resolution to establish a no-fly zone in Lybia to ensure the rebel forces had no ties to al Qaeda. Now he wants to go one step further and provide them arms. Unbelievable. This is the kind of decisions that will continue to make many ask if he's really a Muslim.
 
Al Quaeda links or not (and there may well be such links), what do we really know about the rebels in Libya? They're not an organisation with stated goals and proper leaders, they're just a rabble (and I use that last word in a neutral way, not to condemn them particularly). Among the rebels there are probably as many opinions about the big issues as there are people involved.

Moreover, there is no mechanism in place anyway to choose a new leader if Gaddafi should be deposed. In such a situation, if a new leader does emerge, he might be someone who is worse than Gaddafi and whose presence is antithetical to the West's interests.

It's also not too difficult to imagine the country becoming split, with Gaddafi controlling part of it, around Tripoli, and the rest degenerating into a sort of failed state. Even worse, perhaps, is the scenario in which Gaddafi is gone, no one is really in charge anywhere, and the whole country becomes a failed state.

Added to all of this, what do we (i.e. "the West") do when the next north African/Arab country goes the way of Libya (as Yemen, Bahrain and even Syria look as if they might be doing)? Do we get involved there as well? If not, why not? Why only Libya?

My strong opinion is that our great leaders have not thought this one through very well at all...
 
Like I said, Obama did not do his homework prior to committing our involvement with the no-fly zone.
 
Guard Dad said:
Madea said:
I guess history has taught us (or at least him) NOTHING!!! :BH

Makes no difference when there's little or no experience involved.

That's true. Now he has to admit Bush was right for invading Iraq.
 
Madea said:
I guess history has taught us (or at least him) NOTHING!!! :BH

And now the news comes out that our "limited support role" may include the use of AC-130 gunships to attack armor columns and government military installations and troop emplacements on the ground. Can you say "mission creep"? Of course this has never happened in the past, now has it?
 
Foxmeister said:
Like I said, Obama did not do his homework prior to committing our involvement with the no-fly zone.

Has he EVER done his homework? He's a puppet and only does what he is told by his puppet master!
 
Winchester said:
Foxmeister said:
Like I said, Obama did not do his homework prior to committing our involvement with the no-fly zone.

Has he EVER done his homework? He's a puppet and only does what he is told by his puppet master!

The puppet master would be George Soros.
 
lotstodo said:
Madea said:
I guess history has taught us (or at least him) NOTHING!!! :BH

And now the news comes out that our "limited support role" may include the use of AC-130 gunships to attack armor columns and government military installations and troop emplacements on the ground. Can you say "mission creep"? Of course this has never happened in the past, now has it?

I thought the UN resolution was to enforce the UN's no-fly zone over Libya, which would indicate taking out Libyan air defense systems as well as any Libyan jets in the air. Attacking ground forces does not fall under that umbrella. This is definitely "mission creep." Next thing you know, we will be putting US troops on the ground there.
 
Madea said:
Has there ever been a stated goal?

Not that I've heard, and I think this is one of the biggest problems with the entire undertaking. To engage in military activity without a stated military goal seems to me to be, at best — shall we say — lacking in intellectual rigour.

The only goals I've heard are vague motherhood statements such as "supporting the people of Libya in their fight for freedom" or "helping Libyans fight against political oppression" — all very nice, perhaps, but not achievable military goals. I suppose another "goal" might be to prevent Gaddafi conducting air strikes against other Libyans, but is it all right if he engages in other forms of military activity against them? What if the rebels fight back? Is that all right then?
 
Madea said:
Has there ever been a stated goal?

Obama has plainly stated that the US goal is to remove gadaffi from power. That is not the UN goal however. The UN goal was to stop the "slaughter of innocent civilians", whatever that means. Most UN forces take that to mean knocking out his ability to wage war from the air. The US takes that to mean attacking Gadaffi's ground forces whenever they advance toward a "rebel" position. So far, the NATO forces say they will take over the no fly zone, and anything above that we will be on our own.

The new NATO Commander, Canadian General Charles Bouchard spoke after NATO took over enforcement of the no-fly zone today, Bouchard said that NATO "will do everything it can to deny any use of air power and it will do so with care and precision to avoid harming the people of Libya".

It remains to be seen what NATO and the UN will do. When asked if we would be out by year's end, gates said he didn't know. He said as long as there is a no-fly zone we will have a presence. He refused to confirm or deny the accuracy of the AC-130 statement made by Adm. William Gortney.
 
Back
Top