1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

air strikes on Libya begin

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by tacmotusn, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    An international coalition launched its first strikes on Libya Saturday to destroy the country’s air and missile defense systems and prevent further attacks by the Libyan government on its citizens and rebels in and around the rebel held city of Benghazi, a senior U.S. military official said.

    More than two dozen warships and a large number of war planes from several countries made up the initial strike force, which was led by the U.S. military’s Africa command, the official said, speaking in an embargoed briefing a few hours before the operation began.

    “The key first strikes would be on the coast because that is where the integrated air and missile defense systems,” the official added.
    The first wave included sea-launched U.S. cruise missiles and the deployment of U.S. electronic warfare aircraft.


    For more information, visit washingtonpost.com
  2. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

  3. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OY-_JsNrxiM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  4. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Obama Leads US into Another Illegal Quagmire in Libya

    By Nathaniel Crawford Mar 19, 2011, 7:53 PM Author's Website

    Today our beloved anti-war President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner–in chief announced that he has ordered military action against Libya. The great leader did this without mandatory congressional approval, which is required to attack a sovereign country. No doubt the Democrats (and their vocal anti-war activists) will “fully support the President” like the hypocritical sheep they are. When Bush was starting illegal wars in the Middle East it was wrong, immoral, and an impeachable offence. But now that good old Barry Obama is in office and has a D after his name, war is suddenly a virtuous action to protect civilians. The always reliable pro-war Republicans will start to denounce military action because war is only acceptable when a Republican President starts one. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. These are the pathetic and corrupt leaders you have elected.

    One would think that two full scale wars would be enough for Barry, but evidently power has gone to his head and he wants to “show leadership” by blowing **** up. Hey it worked for George W. Bush who perfectly timed the Iraq war so that he could win re-election by campaigning as a wartime President. Obviously, Barry could care less about the men and women of our military who are risking their lives for nothing in Libya. Instead the President is too-busy jet-setting in Brazil, schmoozing it up with the Brazilian President. But then again, Obama is not sending his daughters to battle or any of his family members so the rest is simply immaterial collateral damage. He can make it up by visiting a military hospital and handing out purple hearts to wounded American soldiers. He will smile, serve them food, chat for 20 mins and crack a few jokes. The pictures can then be used for his 2012 campaign to show how much he loves the troops. Is this really change? Or is exactly what George W. Bush did with the Iraq war?

    Before you get the idea that I am some disgruntled anti-war liberal, let me state that I am not against all wars, just aggressive wars. If the communist Chinese attacked my home state of California you can bet that I would be ready to defend my home and community. This would be a just war because you are defending your-self from an aggressor. But the US, in attacking Libya and is launching another illegal war that will no doubt lead to unintended consequences and casualties on both sides. Why on earth should American taxpayers have to pay for this when it was not properly approved by Congress? Because America is no longer a country ruled by the people. Instead it is run by a world elite which decides policy. All it took to arrange the attack on Libya was for Obama to call up the leaders of France, Britain, and Canada. They agreed and suddenly we are all at war–without any public debate on the issue (and no, debate at the UN is not sufficient). Tyranny at its very best!

    What is more bewildering is why so many Americans seem to support this illegal no-fly zone set up by the UN. According to a poll on March 14 by CNN 56% of Americans support a no-fly zone, while only 40% are opposed. This really shows how puerile the American public has become thanks to the deliberate dumbing down of the population through public education and popular culture. We have bankrupted this country by spending trillions of dollars in two wars over the last 10 years, on top of this we have spent the usual $500-600 billion on the defense budget. Millions of Americans are permanently unemployed/underemployed (17% ), our housing market is in a depression, we are 14 trillion in debt, and yet the American public in all their wisdom wants another war. Are we this fu-king stupid!!!! Apparently.

    Lets get it straight to all of you good old boys out there who like the US invading other countries and flexing its military might. You (the average American) don’t benefit from foreign wars. No, you are the sucker who pays for it through increased taxation and inflation. You are not part of the elite who benefits from war. The only beneficiaries from war are the defense and oil companies and other select corporations (and their owners). They use the American taxpayer as a chump to fund their adventures around the world. They profit while you pay for the war. You send your sons to die in foreign countries so that the elite can make a buck. So don’t think for one second that you are part of “Empire America,” dominating the world and imposing our will. Only the elite enjoy this privilege. The average American gains nothing from these for-profit wars, but pays dearly through their blood and treasure. Remember, we went into Iraq to get the oil, but the American people are still paying $4 gallon for gas. It was the oil companies who won, not the American people.

    One last thing. Before I get hate mail saying I support Gaddafi please save yourself the time. I despise Gaddafi and his ilk and would enjoy nothing more than to see his dead body dragged through the streets of Tripoli. But that is up the Libyan people to decide, not the US military. If the US wanted to overthrow Gaddafi, why did we not arrest him when he was giving a speech to the UN in 2009? He was the same nefarious dictator back then, as he is today, but back then he was our welcomed guest! So there were plenty of times to kill or arrest Gaddafi in the past without war. I am surprised that our over-hyped Nobel Prize Winner could not come up with a better solution than war. It really shows you what a liar Obama is when he talk about peace, etc.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2013
    TXKajun, RKBA2USA, Minuteman and 2 others like this.
  5. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    [ditto]excellent insight on the whole damn thing! [applaud][applaud][applaud][applaud]
  6. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Some more listening enjoyment for those who might be a little more old school.

    Clyde that was certainly an interesting video to say the least.

    <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pZCyOWLrRTE" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>
  7. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    A flippant beginning to another war

    By: Timothy P. Carney 03/19/11 5:47 PM

    Senior Political Columnist Follow Him @TPCarney

    "Today I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians."

    The wording is striking because it recalls the "Authorization of the Use of Force," in Iraq -- an authorization that Congress provided. It was not a unilateral action by the President, like today's "authorization" was. It seems pretty clear to me that the Constitution does not give the President the authority to start an offensive war with no Congressional approval.
    Candidate Obama agreed with me. Here he is in 2007:
    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.
    Another striking detail: CNN reports that this announcement came "in an audio message from Brazil."

    Add in the complete lack of debate, and Obama's silence on the matter before voting at the UN to approve an attack on Libya.

    This seems a pretty flippant way to begin a war.

    But maybe Obama doesn't think 112 Tomahawk Missiles and a pledge to shoot down Libyan aircraft flying in their own airspace counts as "war" -- in which case we have to wonder if we can ever know what he means by any word.

  8. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Article from previous posting quoted.

    Barack Obama's Q&A

    By Charlie Savage Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

    1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

    The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

    2. 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.

    3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

    No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

    4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

    Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

    I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

    5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

    No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

    6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

    With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

    7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

    No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.

    8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

    It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

    9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

    Disagree strongly.

    10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

    First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

    Some further points:
    The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

    Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
    The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

    The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

    I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

    11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

    Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University
    Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
    Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)
    Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)

    12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

    Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.[​IMG]
    © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
  9. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Lord O, the tyrant, has no knowledge of the word TRUTH! Never has, and never will. He lied his way thru the entire pre election campaign unchalenged by the media. He continued to lie as he began his illegal presidency. The sheep didn't care one bit. Why should he care about what the Constitution says, or the hypocrisy of his words or actions. Who is going to step up and call him on it. No one of any authority or standing. Only us little people like ants shouting at an elephant is who. No one hears a thing. I pray things will get better in two years. It can't continue as it is going unabated. Lord O, the nation destroyer MUST GO !!!
    jungatheart likes this.
  10. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    I see the President "authorizing", but doesn't congress have to declare war?
  11. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member


  12. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    It takes 2/3 of Congress to declare war which has not been done. As much as Congress Hee Haws and Loligags the rebels would of been dead by the vote too. As Ron Paul has said, he has handed our Sovereignty over to the U.N. Meet the new boss, just like the old boss. SOS
    Didn't the head of Blackwater go to Africa to train mercs? Did such mercs inspire, train and equip disgruntled people for protests in said countries of Africa to start all of this? Have they inspired all the other discontent in Tunisia, Yemen, and Saudia Arabia? The evil empire wants all the oil over there, and our T-Bills they swapped for oil is worthless.The double cross has begun, by our criminal treasonous government, and they all need to be brought up on Title 17 of the Constitution on charges of attempting to overthrow our Constitutional form of Government and aiding the enemy, the U.N This might be the start of WWIII. Who's worse, the Administration or Quaddafi?
  13. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    WTF do we want to protect these "innocent civilians" for anyway? Aren't these the same rabid anti-U.S. dicks that applauded the return of the Pan Am bomber?

    We should not be intervening here.
    UGRev, ColtCarbine and jungatheart like this.
  14. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Unconstitutional and "unamerican"...all of it. UN. How ironic.
    ColtCarbine and Mountainman like this.
  15. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    They have INVADED another soverign countries borders without provocation. We DO NOT have the constitutional authority to do so. Those "innocent civilians" had already taken over several cities and were headed across the country. It is a CIVIL WAR and not any of our business. We had a civil war that killed millions--60,000 in just three days at Gettysburg. That was our countries struggle and no one's affair but ours. The lying POS kenyan has become worse than the pirates we went to Tripoli to stop 100 yrs ago. Am just fuming about outrageous, illegal, and un American use of our armed forces. Rant off--reluctantly.
  16. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    We are dealing with an oligarchy, it's not just Obama. ;) Stick any Rothschild dynasty goon in the White House (as is the norm) and we will continue to see the same.

    You are right. They do not have the constitutional authority to conduct pre-emptive wars at will. This is happening because the oligarchy is not operating under the confines of the constitution; the emergency war powers cover all the bases, and we do not have an active republic any longer, unfortunately.
  17. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Human rights, my ass. I got so tired of that BS flag-waving crap during Desert Storm. They need another distraction. Watch my hands: nothing up my sleeves...presto!
    ColtCarbine likes this.
  18. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I thought Al Qaeda was the enemy, WTF!

    Saturday, March 19, 2011

    President Hussein Backs Al Qaeda in Libya

    Well, you have to hand it to Obama, he is consistent in his extreme anti-Americanism. Throughout his presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn. His fierce islamophilia threatens free men the world over. Taking his marching orders from the vile America-hater and Jew-hater, the devout Muslim Sheik Qaradawi, Obama paves the way for an Islamic state in Libya. Not that it was good before, hardly. But there are degrees of evil. It can always be worse, but little matches the anti-human brutality of Islamic regimes in the twenty-first century.

    He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
    He's backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
    He backed the brutal mullahcracy in Iran during the Iranian people's bloody march for freedom.
    He's backed Hezb'Allah in Lebanon.
    He's backed Islamic law at the UN in co-sponsoring a resolution on the restriction of free speech.
    And he is backing Al Qaeda in Libya.
    Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side The Telegraph (hat tip Armaros)

    Statements of support for Libya's revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.

    WikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi's regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah.

    An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issued a fatwa authorising Col Gaddafi's military entourage to assassinate him.

    Col Gaddafi has pinpointed the rebels in Dernah as being led by an al-Qaeda cell that has declared the town an Islamic emirate. The regime also casts blame on hundreds of members of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group released since the group renounced violence two years ago.

    Although said by the regime to be affiliated to al-Qaeda, most LIFG members have focused only on promoting sharia law in Libya, rejecting a worldwide "jihad".

    "Only promoting sharia law." So they are OK with honor killing, killing of apostates, clitorectomies, women as property, amputations for stealing, stoning for "adultery," hangings for gays, Jewish genocide, ethnic cleansing ........
    No worries :)
    Spartan300 and Quigley_Sharps like this.
  19. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Posting removed, since I realized this article originated from Alex Jones. I do apologize for posting something from his website, I should have realized or recognized how it was written where it might have originated from. [peep]
  20. TXKajun

    TXKajun Monkey++

    U.S just has to poke anthills, no? Seems like there is NO respect for sovereign boundaries any more, at least if those boundaries are in an Arab country ('cept Saudi Arabia, of course. errr, remind me again, how many of the 9/11 guys were Saudis??).

    Iraq? Poke X2. Afghanistan? Poke. Palestine? Poke. Libya? POKE X3!

    What's gonna happen when the ants come boiling out? Wanna bet there's total looks of unbelief on every WH face? "How come this happened?" "What did we ever do to them?"

    Not as if we ain't got enough debt now, eh? Seems like the WH (and one person in particular) is bound and determined to bankrupt us. Oh, wait! I forgot! The Fed will just print up more U.S. $. Nothing to worry about, nothing to see here, keep moving.

    Sheesh. This is so wrong on so many levels.

survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary