"Nobody was killed today in Libya"
"There are no bombs falling" "The glorious leader Quadaffi will crush the infidels"
Posted on 03/20/2011 8:53:25 PM PDT by Stayfrosty
ShababLibya BREAKING: It has been confirmed by a few sources and now also Al Manara, Khamis Gaddafi has died today, as a result of burns #Libya #Feb17
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsofwar.com ...
No need to worry about him ever taking his vengeance.
Gaddafi’s youngest son.
*But I keep thinking about what the spin would be if George Bush (or any republican president) approached the situation the way Great Leader is approaching Lybia. Know what I mean?*
I know exactly what you mean-all you have to do is read a random Libya thread around here to get the point. This place has turned into the DU, suddenly, in regards to this. Normally, there’s no war that doesn’t make Freepers tumescent but suddenly it’s “War Powers Act” this and “war crimes” that. Nonsense. Even the French are on the right side of this.
If this rat bastid is dead, it’s kind of ironic how we off these dudes kids first so they can enjoy that before we off them. Nice touch.
With all due respect, we are not defending our own land in Libya. We are not even defending our own interest beyond the fact that Quackie has been a terror supporting idiot but that should have been dealt with decades ago.
We are following the wishes of the UN and they don’t like us. The Middle East is on fire because subversive elements within those countries are trying to overthrow dictatorial regimes they don’t like. Unfortunately, much of the unrest is being fueled by Muslim clerics who will probably be worse for American interest than those they replace. We are now actively engaged in trying to topple one government with NO IDEA about the new government. In fact, current evidence seems to indicate that the new government may be worse.
What we did in Egypt was insane. We toppled the one man who has done the most to bring stability to the region and we greatly increased the danger to our biggest ally in the region.
If we are in Libya because we want to protect innocent life before all else why are we not going after North Korea, China, or interfering in Africa?
Our President has not even consulted congress about this! He dithered and took so much time to make a decision (seems to be a pattern) that our chances of success diminished greatly.
Honestly, if we are going to topple any regime in the Middle East we should be marching on Tehran. Get rid of them and the whole region will settle down quickly. That is my .02 and you can make the same “human rights” arguments about AckI’manutjob and the mullahs. They are actively engaged in killing our soldiers and undermining our missions in Iraq not to mention they are trying to build nukes. Using any kind of methodology they should be target #1 over there.
Thank you.
Democracy in Libya? Gimme what you’re smoking.
People get the government they deserve. If a bunch of muzzies want to kill each other, we are fools to stop them. I don’t care which side eventually wins.
(shrug)
As with every one of these Middle East nations that have recently been subjected to (no doubt, agent provocateur-fueled) "spontaneous" street protests, I'm still waiting to find out what monster replaces the current monster. I sure hope Zero or somebody knows. And no, I'm not counting on it.
Agree w/ your comments in this thread.
>>>”Honestly, if we are going to topple any regime in the Middle East we should be marching on Tehran.”<<<
Any thoughts on why we haven’t so far?
I pretty much agree with all you’ve said.
It is obvious that we will never have a chance for stability in Iraq as long as Iran is free to interfere. They don’t just interfere with Iraq, they are directly responsible for killing our soldiers there yet we do nothing about it. The leader of Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and they seem to be hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons. A bad combination to say the least. Iran is also responsible for supporting terrorism around the world. One wonders just how responsible they are for all the unrest that is happening in the Islamic world right now. So far, all of the regime changes greatly benefit Iran.
I don’t understand it either.
The only reason that I can think of for why we have not forced regime change in Iran comes from my faith and the bible. It must not fit God’s plan. May sound simple to some but anyone who has studied the bible knows what needs to occur and much of that is focused on the region. I don’t know when all of that will happen but the political dynamics of the Middle East are changing quicker than anyone ever imagined.
One can even make a valid argument that our attacking Quackie in Libya is supporting the goals of Iran! Our call for Mubarrak to step down supported the goals of Iran. Our failure to force the new Iraqi government we created to end corruption plays into their hands. Our failure to support Israel, our friend and ally, also plays into the hands of Iran. We even stopped Israel from attacking the nuclear production sites in Iran.
I don’t get it!
I’m not shedding any tears over Khadafi’s troubles.
We are doing what we ought to have done after Lockerbie.
I’m not blind, though, to the hypocrisy of our leaders. The people in and around the White House would never have supported this if a Republican president had ordered it. I remember the reactions when Reagan went after Khadafi and I remember the reactions when Bush went after Saddam... from the very same Democrats who voted for it, no less. And we had multiple UN resolutions and more than one vote in congress authorizing it.
I suspect that Obama didn’t originally intend to take out Khadafi. He wanted Mubarak gone, but Khadafi is collateral damage. Khadafi is a friend of friends. He dragged his feet, said as little as possible as long as possible, and only when the Brits and the French decided to go for it, and only once he had the OK from the Muslim Brotherhood, he was compelled to get on board. And so, like many others before him, Khadafi found himself under Obama’s bus.
Still, I don’t object to taking him down. Wish the Dem cheerleaders on this one would have been a little more helpful (and honest, no less) when we took down Saddam.
Thanks.
All you said is true. And, because everything we (the West collectively) have done over the last 3 decades & continue to do has favored the Iranian regime & their ideology, they rightly feel emboldened. I don’t see democracy flourishing in the ME & North Africa. I fear there will be a war on a much larger scale between the Islamic world & the West; unfortunately, we are setting the foundation for it ourselves.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." - Adolf Hitler
Right on!
Obummer is doing this with the UN and they have no love for the United States; at all.
The UN as a body would like nothing more than to take down the US and this is part of the way to do it.
Who, or what, comes after Khadafi (sp?). The Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaida. They have already made their intentions clear that they want a caliphate installed in the entire Mid East and one of the first things they will do is stop all oil sales to the US, thereby bringing us to our knees.
Why do we want this? I could care less about a bunch of heathens in Libya and would rather have the Col in charge for now rather than a cult that will do more damage than he.
The world has no hope of installing any form of peaceful government in that area and should just try to manage the crooks in place or help get crooks in place that are at least more friendly to us.
It takes education and a want to be free to make a free country and thousands of years of barbarism will not allow for that over there.
The point, or your point? My post wasn't a direct response to you. And your point doesn't exactly mesh with those being made by the newly registered members of the Odyssey Boosters Club, which is acting like an offshoot of OFA.
You want Qaddafi dead, fine, I get it. I'd like to see him burn, too. But there's something bigger at stake here. Multiple somethings, actually.
First is the fact that U.S. troops have been committed to war by the United Nations against the will of 65% of the country without the consent of Congress. With the number of Americans opposed to this action, it never could have gotten authorization in the House. So no authorization was sought. They did an end-around the people and our representatives. We were committed to a no-fly zone enforcement action that became a regime change operation in less than 36 hours. As long as the regime being changed fights back, you've got yourself a war. This is war, by U.N. decree.
Second is the question of what becomes of Libya after Qaddafi's dead. No one seems to be able to answer that. Mostly we hear a lot of wishful-thinking and vacuous platitudes about "democracy" with zero regard for the fact that the next functional democracy in the islamist Middle East will be the first. The odds of Libya being taken over by anything but the most brutal and committed islamists are next to nil.
Third is the question of what about Yemen and Bahrain. They're putting down their revolutionaries in much the same way Qaddafi was putting down his. Are we going there next? What exactly is the U.N. foreign policy that we're now beholden to? Is it whatever the Arab League wants? Is it based on oil? Old scores? Is it completely arbitrary? Did anyone bother to ask?
I don't see how subjecting our military to the whims and unstated goals of the United Nations and turning Libya over to jihadists while making America weaker and the world more dangerous represents justice in any way for the victims of Pam Am 103. I think bringing them up at all, when it's perfectly clear they didn't factor one bit into the decision-making that led to this action, is disingenuous.
Ummmm I don't get it.
I'm being "disingenuous"? What utter nonsense.
I should not bring up Lockerbie when talking about what I think should be done in Libya? That's politically correct BS.
Third is the question of what about Yemen and Bahrain. They're putting down their revolutionaries in much the same way Qaddafi was putting down his. Are we going there next? What exactly is the U.N. foreign policy that we're now beholden to? Is it whatever the Arab League wants? Is it based on oil? Old scores? Is it completely arbitrary? Did anyone bother to ask?
I'll tell you what. Why don't you find somebody who supports Obama's philosophy about the UN and why don't you ask them those questions? To bring those questions up to me when I refer to Lockerbie is disingenuous.
Do me a favor. Don't even try to judge my motives. Apparently, you're not smart enough to do that.
Second is the question of what becomes of Libya after Qaddafi's dead. No one seems to be able to answer that.
Certainly a valid concern that I would be glad to discuss it if you would stop the other nonsense.
Muslim countries are very good at producing the next MOST brutal. I am sure no one will be disappointed.
I was referring, in very general sense, to the rationalizations being made here, by talking heads and by the administration. This wasn’t about you. Until you responded to me, I can’t recall having read anything you’ve written.
Try not to take things so personally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.