Its so funny how the total western and international media keeps reporting that only millitary targets will be bombed yet this is the 5th time they execute a targetted strike against Gaddafi.

How can you ever believe anything these guys say if they always lie?

Funny hat, but this does actualy prevent the government influincing you rmood with electro magnetic weapons.
Wich they can actualy employ thru your tv screen and the new mandatory lightbulbs.

After the next 9/11 in the USA , France , UK or Canada :


-' We do not understand why they do that, attacking civilians ... ' .... ' Must be because they hate our FREEDOMS ... ' ....

:warning

not nearly as many as bush and we aren't dropping bombs on his house :2 cents:

if some guy rapes your wife , is the solution to go rape his wife ?

They should have taken him out years ago when Pan Am went down.

Yep...we will all be shocked and unable to understand why people would attack us for "no reason"

Cool so you are all for raping a serial rapists kids to get him to tell you where the bodies are?

I hope the next bomb drops on Gadaffis head.

And what should have happened when U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Flight 655 killing all 290 civilians on board.

The United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran

Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 six months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.
BUT THEN >>>>

The cause of the crash was later determined to be a bomb associated with the Libyan intelligence service. <<<<<<< Motive?

It says NATO, so why are most of you saying Obama? Prove it first.

Anyone following this knows the US is barely involved. France and UK are leading the charge, backed by NATO. China and Russia are against any direct action.

Right because NATO means anything without the US. The US has already said it is using unmanned drones and manned air attacks in Libya. Do some learning Falcon you're slipping!

No one would be much surprised if it was the U.S., but at the very least prove it first. Don't just make shit up. You'd like to have some credibility left wouldn't you?

Command and control centers are military targets...thus anywhere that Gadhafi is becomes a command and control center.

And the Bush family were deeply involved with Hitler and the Nazis. And hey, remember the Cold War? Let's not move on.

yeah it's odd. do people think that he hasn't been in the crosshairs of the western powers for decades? it was just made up lately?

the uprising finally gave them the perfect opportunity to get rid of him.

He just recently acknowledged the acts of terror he did 30 years ago. Then paid out millions to the families affected and renounced terrorism. He then allowed the nuclear agencies in to inspect and shut down his countries nuclear weapons program.

He was then taken off the terrorist list by the State Dept. and became our "buddy".

I think he just happens to be a victim of the times. The Arab "Spring" looked real good a few months ago and I think the U.S. govt. was hoping that young people would rise up in Iraq just like they did in Egypt and other Muslim countries there.

So when a few thousand Libyans saw this as a win/win grab for power and went for it...our govt. figured we should back them in hopes it would encourage people in other countries to overthrow their govt. like Egypt did.

Unfortunately...Gaddafi is backed by the majority of his citizens and nearly all the tribes (the culture there is much different than ours).

We were told that this would all be over in a few days. It isn't. And who knows if it will even if Gaddafi is killed?

Bottom line is it's none of our business. And we have zero rights to be interfering in their country.

Even if we weren't bankrupt...we have NO business there. It's not our country.

It would be like Glenn Beck having that big rally in Washington, and Russia deciding that he needed "help" and started bombing the White House. lol
And yes, I know that Beck didn't pick up guns and start attacking...but I'm just saying...even if he did we wouldn't want another country coming in to "help" him overthrow our govt.

gadaffi intervened in the affairs of other countries for years and now it's come back to him in a big way. in this case, karma is a bitch.

Let's not forget it was the Libyans who were after Doc Brown.
http://news.gomotorbids.com/userfile...auto-28471.jpg

To a normal person, that would be a sad event, but not to Gadhafi. All he cares about is his power.

The action is Libya was mandated by the UN and NATO and the U.S. is a member of both organizations...thus we have an obligation to be involved.

If it's our obligation...then why are only FIVE NATO alliance countries involved? If it's an obligation then why aren't all 28 countries involved?

And isn't it crazy...NATO was supposed to be an alliance of countries that will defend each other if one is attacked...and here it is DOING the attacking?

I'd like to see our military brought home from the more than 80 countries that we currently occupy. Japan? Germany? WWII has been over for more than 60 years. I think it's safe to bring our troops home from those two countries at least. :(

Haha I remember that!

If the NATO countries involved are not enough to get the job done...I am satisfied more will be called upon.

Having troops and forward bases deployed around the world is what has made the U.S. the only military superpower on the earth...but of course one can argue that one does not want to be a citizen of a superpower.

Yes, crying about your children when they get killed is such a pussy move.

You mention that Libya funded terrorist organizations like the IRA and PLO but the United States currently funds terrorist states like Israel. Does that mean it is the duty of every other country on Earth to bomb the US and kill their presidents? Even past president's children are fair game according to you. And in fact, you supporting that kind of terrorism means anyone can come up to you, murder your children, and you will be okay with it because you will see the justification for it that YOU YOURSELF laid out. Well done. Come on don't be so naive and stupid.

Don't forget what all started this. It wasn't the crying of any Arabs or Muslims. It was the crying of the Americans after 9/11 and the whole 'we need to kill ANYONE' mentality that your country took on. And now you have guys like Gaddafi who run a full army, are fighting on the ground being called a pussy by Americans who won't even step foot on Libya because they are too scared. Keep using your unmanned drones and attacking from 100s of miles away to kill little kids but don't for a second think that everyone in the world doesn't see that kind of BS as the most bullshit, disgusting PUSSY cowardly behaviour there is.

No, I just look at the money we are wasting and the fact that we do not belong in other countries.

And just saying that we only need five to get the job done is not what you said earlier that it was our "obligation" as a member of NATO. Obviously it is not. We are doing it because we want to.

I'm very uneasy about all of this and have been since the Vietnam War which was also an illegal war. We haven't been in a "real" constitutionally legal war since WWII
But we've sure as hell fought and killed a lot of people in a lot of places.

I know that we are a "good" people in the United States. But our govt.? They are, and always have been a conniving power hungry group of men. And I don't think we should have people being killed all over the world so we can all feel good by saying we are a SuperPower.

Bin Laden apparently didn't get that memo and all of our SuperPower military can't find him after all these years. But we've had more of our people killed invading countries than he killed on 9-11.

If we're "Winning", it's more of a Charlie Sheen "win" than a real one. I'm of the opinion that we are creating more terrorists around the world everytime we do shit like this.

We should have stayed out of Libya's internal affairs.

IF we had stayed out...there's a good possibility that Gaddafi would have done something stupid like a massacre...then the people really might have risen up against him. A few hundred people MIGHT have been killed. That's the price you pay when you try to overthrow a govt.

But now? We've armed a bunch of "rebels", and bombed the hell out of the country. How many TRUE innocent civilians are now being killed? And no...I'm not talking about what the news media tries to perpetuate: According to CNN, it seems that EVERY rebel with a gun shooting that gets killed is an "innocent civilian". lol

Qaddafi forgot to bring his "human shield" ....

tis true. a lot of the wikileaks cables have countries from all sides begging for us intervention and money. they are the world police, and sometimes the world citizens call them in to break shit up.

In the mean time the UK expels the Libyan ambassador because our goverment are outraged that they burned our embassy down...and of course thats against the rules "The Vienna Convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli."

What a fucking joke.. Im sure the Libyan people really want our embassy in thier country with pompus Uk idiot foreign ministers walking around while we are bombing the shit out of thier country The goverment of the UK are one big fucking hypocritical joke

LOL What? Wait so you're saying who acts big and then cries when something happens?

Muslims are getting killed by the hundreds every day and you don't hear them saying a thing about it. One attack on 9/11 sent you American pussies into hysteria.

Just proves you DUMB and naive some people like YOU are.

I guess you're all for raping the kids of rapists then right? They should have thought of that before they raped, right? Man I feel sorry for ignorant idiots like you, if I ran the world people like you would be castrated and any kids that you have now would be removed from your custody IMMEDIATELY.

Are you giving a green light then for Iran to attack the US since the US bombed an Iranian flight? You can't be for one thing and against another, and it's LOSERS like you who talk the talk and can't walk the walk. You say this and that about Gaddaffi but I guarantee you that Gaddaffi has more sense and sanity in his pinky finger than you do in your entire FAMILY. Especially your MOM and DAD who were obviously giant losers and failures to raise a loser like you. What a mess you are!

You're probably still mad about the abolishment of slavery, aren't you? What a fucking LOSER!!

It is our obligation when called upon by NATO...with the backing of a UN mandate...but I am satisfied that we easily agreed if not instigated the involvement of NATO...and we of course backed the UN resolution...if not instigated the resolution.

It is our geo positioning of our military power that has helped to make us the largest economic power on the earth...but of course our economic power is on the decline now...and ultimately will reduce our military power.

While Congress alone has the authority to declare War...the President has the authority to engage our military where ever and when ever he sees fit to do so...with or without the permission of Congress...for a ninety day period...and then if Congress does not give him permission to continue the engagement they have the power to cut off the funding for the engagement.

One of the problems that the U.S. has is the civilian micro management of the military action when our troops are engaged. Since the end of the Second World War none of our military engagements should have lasted any longer than six months max. Not Korea...not Vietnam...not Iraq and not Afghanistan.

The policy of occupying and nation building/rebuilding is what extends the cost of the military action and is what extends the loss of life on all sides.

It appears that our civilian leaders are going to be forced to learn how to engage our military the hard way by not having the money to be involved in these long drawn out engagements that are not necessary.

I agree there. IF we go to war it should be balls out. Then declare victory and get the hell out. Leave the threat behind that if you fuck with us again...we will come back.
That is what we should have done in Afghanistan (even though we should never have invaded an entire country over the actions of a few crazy people)

Death of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi may backfire for Nato

The death of Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, if confirmed, is likely to have come as a consequence of Nato's increasingly aggressive tactics, undertaken by the alliance to shake up a stalemate in the conflict.

But his killing in an air strike is a grievous strategic error - militarily insignificant but diplomatically disastrous.

Towards the end of April, Nato states made a number of operational innovations. Three member states - Britain, France, and Italy - injected military advisers into rebel-held eastern Libya. Another, the US, began continuous patrols of armed drones.

Third, and most important, air strikes began to target command, control, communications and intelligence networks (known, in military parlance, as C3I). The Bab al-Aziziya compound includes all three such networks, and it was presumed that their disruption would disorient regime soldiers on the front line, cut off field commanders from Tripoli, and sow confusion in the ranks.

But was the strike also an assassination attempt?

Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity.

More here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13252192

This could spell some trouble

Shifting balance

The problem is that the direction of this effect is unclear. The dramatic visual impact of this air strike, and the death of those disconnected from political and military leadership, will harden the diplomatic opposition to the war, from Russia and China amongst others.

More consequentially, it will anger the alliance's warier members, like Germany and Turkey, and inflame parts of Arab and African public opinion.

It may eventually leave Britain and France bearing the military burden alone, with modest but limited assistance from a cagey US administration eager to keep at arm's length from this European war.

Oh don't pretend like a UN agreement or NATO agreement means ANYTHING to the United States.

Shut the fuck up theking you never knew your shit about this stuff in the first place.

Go read or something before you keep making a fool of yourself.

The US invaded Iraq illegally according to the UN charter. Did the US care? No.

So why would they HAVE TO do anything now according to that same charter? Don't be a fucking dummy theking, learn from history. You are so ignorant to things that happen every day that I'm surprised you even made it to the internet.

Then again, you have shown yourself to be mentally unstable by faking your own death here on this board. So am I really that surprised? No. Do I wish you would stop pretending like you know your shit when it comes to US foreign policy? YES!

If the USA really lead this whole thing in Libya it would be over by now.
Ghadafi would certainly be dead and his whole family and if not that they would be holed up in a cave, or some self dug hole in the ground and utterly powerless.
If you went to MSNBC and saw the Photo of Ghadafi's house you would have noticed unexploded ordinance in his living room. Literally.

Face it...
Europe does not know how to fight wars, and they even go so far as to think there is honor in it while ascribing silly laws like you can't kill the leadership.

Bullshit.
I guess if NATO wants Libya takin care of they going to have to pay America to do it for them.
Frankly... Americans can give two shits about Libya. It's not our war.

First of all I am not a Muslim.

Second of all, anyone who is racist and as bigoted as you should NOT have children in their custody. I think everyone can agree with me on that one.

Did I say you were a child rapist? No. Maybe you should learn to read too, dummy. However you use racial slurs a plenty, which IS cause for a banning. Will I ask to have you banned? Of course not! You make me look so good and it is so damn easy to come back at your senseless garbage. I'll keep you around and play with you as long as I can. You are now my little bitch toy.

Most Muslims are still savages? Isn't that what slave owners called slaves?

What a shame there are still people like you around today. I'm sure your grandparents would be happy, you know, the same grandparents that were all for slavery and thought black people were all savages?

How upset they would be with you right now if they knew your leader and President was a black 'savage'.

here you go check this out

Libya: Where do Nato countries stand?

Just 15 of Nato's 28 member states, plus three partner countries - Qatar, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates - are contributing in some way to the military operation in Libya. So, what is each country's position? Explore the graphic and table below to find out more.
Nato's divisions
1 = more force, 5 = less force

1.
1
Would escalate military action
* UK
* France
2.
2
Conducting airstrikes
* US
* Canada
* Belgium
* Norway
* Denmark
3.
3
Reconnaissance missions only
* Italy
* Spain
* Netherlands
4.
4
Offering some military support
* Albania
* Bulgaria
* Greece
* Romania
* Turkey
5.
5
No military support
* Croatia
* Czech Rep
* Estonia
* Germany
* Hungary
* Iceland
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* Poland
* Portugal
* Slovakia
* Slovenia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13092451

Someone should bomb this mess of a thread before it gets worse ...

a senator was on the news this morning claiming ghadafi is NOT the legitimate ruler of libya, therefore, he can (and should) be targeted.

That's correct.

Figured someone would reply as you did ... when it comes to protecting resources, one needs to consider the larger picture...

Libya is the excuse by which the U.S. can keep a powerful presence in that part of the world to ensure a steady supply of resources to the global power-elite (including many other places in addition to the U.S., such as China)...

Consider Iraq - it was never about their supply of oil per se (most of it never gets to the U.S.), but rather who would control it - and to further ensure that other oil producing nations toed the line and didn't cut out the U.S., such as, for example, by denominating oil in some other currency that's less favorable.

Ron