The Cellar - Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24476)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 720177)

Never mind.

You just want to keep talking around my points with a revisionist history, at least IMO.

Weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 720178)

How many ships has Turkey provided? What is the strength of their naval power? How many airplanes has Qutar contributed? What is the effect of their contribution?

Turkey's contribution to the naval blockade and Qatar's to the No Fly Zone, or at least Qatar's recognition of the rebels and the Transitional National Council as the sole legitimate authority in the country are symbolic and serve an important geo-political function, rather than a military function.

No boots on the ground, but very close by, just in case.....

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=8039326

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 720181)

Nice dance. :dunce:

No different than when we went into Iraq.

Rut Ro....

'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...#ixzz1Hffm5oRa

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 720188)

Rut Ro....

'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...#ixzz1Hffm5oRa

Chad, like many of Libya's African neighbors kowtow to Ghadaffi, their sugar daddy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1915484/

Chad, Sudan, etc. are also providing fighters under the direction of Ghaddafi's sons since he is apparently not all that confident that he has or will maintain the support of his own military.

Chad claiming that AlQaeda snatched missiles is much like Ghaddafi claiming that the rebels are Al Qaeda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 720197)

Who cares. I posted the news. There is enough stirring of this subject for us to be concerned. Esp since all the critics of Bush were not about his success in taking down a country in 2 weeks, but the aftermath, where a vacuum occurred and there is no evidence that it will be any different in Libya. Another Big Fail for Obama.

Quote:

Our new Cowboy in the White House has declared war on Libya. One can just imagine the headlines in the New York Times if George Bush were to have taken the action he did. Dare we remember the outrage from the left even when the UN passed the necessary resolutions on Iraq, today the left still squawk about how Bush lied about going to war? The hypocrisy of the left on this war in Libya is so breathtaking that anybody who calls themselves a moderate Democrat if one exists, or an independent, should be having serious doubts about the ideology of liberalism or the total game of political expediency they use. When Republicans “lie” the same policies of the left are that of “courage and fortitude.”

Continues:

http://bigpeace.com/kdavies/2011/03/...e-i-am-for-it/

Ghadaffi's support is crumbling around him, with the exception of his sons and "40 Listicked Virgins"

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/23/mo...ec1_lnk3|51358

The growing defections among his closest political supporters (some of whom are running for their lives to the West, if they can escape) and possibly his military are positive developments.

With that I bid you a good night.

Quote:

Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.
Sounds like a warmonger.

Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.
First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.
Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than “Evil Bush’s War?” They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.
While I’m at it, Barack Obama can thank George W. Bush that Madman Gadafi doesn’t have nukes. It was Bush who talked Gadafi into sending his nukes to a warehouse in Tennessee where they can do no harm. This invasion of Libya would not be happening if Gadafi still had those nukes, without them, Gadafi is more of a neighborhood bully knocking his citizens around, those type are everywhere in the Middle East and Africa. Bad stuff indeed, but there’s no chance of a mushroom cloud right now and that fact changes everything. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize can look tough here because Bush had already removed Gadafi’s big gun. I’ve yet to hear the activist old media mention this vital fact.
One of the media’s favorite themes during the Bush administration was how he supposedly was “King George” who wanted to circumvent Congress and rule over America. Of course, this was a silly premise, but where are they now with Dear Leader ignoring Congress on the Libyan War? Granted, Obama does not have to get their approval, but even “Evil Bush” got Congressional approval for Iraq, twice. The media forgets/ignores that Democrats demanded a second vote approving Bush’s actions in Iraq shortly before the 2002 mid-terms so that they could show America that they were bullish on national security. The Democrats never mention their support of the Iraq War and the media helps them erase their multiple positive votes on taking out Saddam, remember, this was Bush’s War he waged for personal reasons — or perhaps it was for oil? Hmm –where are the “No Blood For Oil” signs from Code Pink and their friends? Will the media show us anti-Obama protests? The activist old media has been telling us (inaccurately) for the last two months that the rise in gas prices was because of Libyan oil, so will they conclude that Obama is starting this war because of oil? That’s an easy connection to make, but they’ll conclude Bush was a brainiac before they’ll say Obama went to war for oil.

Continues:

http://bigjournalism.com/rfutrell/20...a-a-hypocrite/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 720203)

None of that addresses the issues. Who is going to take the place of the current government? Who is poised to fill the void? The Muslim Brotherhood? AQ? Who?

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

"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," Obama responded.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...ve-power-unde#

Two Andrew Breitbart columns. Nice!

Now there is an objective observer? What, no Beck or Limbaugh? :rolleyes:

No, Beck and Limbaugh are crazy. But if you would like to dispute their reports I would be glad to hear you try.

Now you attack the messenger. Isn't that a organized plan by Soros and his whores? Attack the messenger, don't dispute the message?

I would love to see you dispute his reports. Your turn.

Change your name to Unfair or at least Unbalanced. Your previous name quit like a big pussy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 720147)

It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.

Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

The intervention must be limited.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.

These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.

And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.

We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.

For me, this is an appropriate time and place.

And the leader of the country must be linked to terrorism.:neutral: