"We begin bombing in five minutes."--Ronald Reagan

By a 10-0 vote, the United Nations Security Council has authorized "all military measures" except military occupation of Libya.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Egypt is already shipping arms to the Libyan rebels . France says it will be ready "within hours" to fly over Libya. Libyans in France are reportedly shouting "Zanga Zanga, Dar Dar, We will get you Muamar! Vive la France! Vive Sarkozy! Vive les droits de l’homme!"

I'm torn on this. Obviously, I'm wary of taking military action in a matter that doesn't concern us, and I'm especially concerned when it's the United Nations that dictates this. And anything that makes the neocons smile is, well, worrisome.

On the other hand, Khadafy (or however his damn name is spelled) has survived as dictator for far too long. It's time for that bastard and his sons to go.

So, what do you guys say?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Saif Khadafy wants his money back. He says he funded Sarkozy's campaign, and he thinks it's unfair that Sarkozy pushed for this resolution:

Heh-heh.

Saif's credibility isn't exactly overflowing right now, but this isn't the first time that Sarkozy's campaign was accused of, well, improprieties. He's also accused of taking kickbacks from an arms deal with Pakistan to help fund his campaign.

Saif Khadafy may be learning a lesson--albeit a little bit late--about honest politicians being the ones who stay bought.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I do have one good thing to say about Qaddafi any dictator that lives in a tent can't be all bad, or can he.

I want the United States to stay out of this mess but if the UN without our help wants to take out that walking crap pile, I say do it.

What I worry about is who or what will replace Qaddafi.

I hope that it will be a nice Secular Republic and not another Islamic Republic with a leader who hates Israel and the United States and who wants Islam to dominate the world.

And then there is this. Anytime the UN wants to do something I have to wonder what the true purpose of it is. I have a hard time thinking that the UN is doing anything because of pure goodness. There must be some hidden agenda, we just have to figure out what it is.

Oh by the way your spelling of Khadafy is just as good or bad as anyone else's spelling of his damn name, it seems like no one knows the correct spelling and maybe not even Khadafy, Qaddafi or however it is spelled, himself knows how to spell it.

kadafi.

From what I have been able to find it seems No One Knows how to spell his name.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2011/0222/Gaddafi-Kadafi-Qaddafi-What-s-the-correct-spelling

Blame it on the name of the country's head of state, Colonel Gaddafi. Wait, no, that's Kaddafi. Or maybe it's Qadhafi. Tell you what, we'll just call him by his first name, which is, er ... hoo boy.
Part of the problem here is that there's no universally accepted authority for transliterating Arabic names. Normally, news outlets will just go with whatever spelling the subject prefers, but this particular subject hasn't settled on a single Roman orthography for his name.
Instead, Libya's Brother Leader lets a hundred flowers bloom. The banner at the top of his official website spells it, "AL Gathafi." But if you go deeper into the site, you'll see it variously rendered as "Al Qaddafi," "Algathafi," and "Al-Gathafi." Adding to the multitude of his spellings is the increasingly ironically named "Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights."
And that's just the surname. Variations on his given name include Muammar, Moammar, Mu'ammar, and Moamar, and many others. Once you've settled on how to spell his first and last names, you then have to decide whether you want to add the Arabic prefix "al-" before his last name. Which can also be spelled "el-." And then you have to decide whether the prefix should be capitalized.

how about call him what he is, shithead tyrant that needs to die.

Shithead – correct

Tyrant – again correct

That needs to die – absolutely correct and I will add, needs to die slowly and painfully.

What is really scary is this Shithead Tyrant is most likely not even the worse Shithead Tyrant of the Twentieth Century, I believe there were some who were even worse.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and last but certainly not least of the Modern Day Monsters Saddam and his Evil Sons.

Yep.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I vote for spelling it in a way that matches his personality.

"Ka-daffy-duck," because he is despicable!

That concerns me too. I have to wonder what he will be replaced with. *Sometimes*, and not necessarily in this case, the old saying about "better the devil you know rather than the one you don't" holds true.

However, I do agree he needs to be turned into date palm fertilizer.

I don't like anything that involves, or has the letters "U.N." in it.

Meanwhile, in Yemen...

Onward and upward,
airforce

And in Syria...

Onward and upward,
airforce

And in Saudi Arabia, where they\'re taking a break from killing protesters in Bahrain , King Abdullah is hoping to quell unrest by spreading around money:

Onward and upward,
airforce

Let those barbarians tear each other apart. We have no business nosing around in their blood and oil-soaked sand, just like they have no business nosing around here in the land of the free.

One of my more reliable European contacts tells me that he has verified information that Khaddaffi is hiring mercs at very high dollar, and European analysts are saying that if he can hold out for six months, he is likely to win against the rebellion since they are not expected to be able to field a fighting force for that long.

Mercs with a professional military background in the western militaries are getting around $15,000 per month. My source knows of six former US Air Force officers who have gone over to serving Khadaffi, several former East German military people some Czechs and Serbs. He thinks some US Army and possibly Marine personnel went over the fence too, but were likely out of the military for a while before going to work for Khadaffi. The situation with the US Air Force people has been reported in the media in Italy and France. My contact says that at the original offerings of $3000 to $6000 per month, most western European mercs were too proud to go work for Khadaffi and a few were rumored to be helping the rebels just for the adventure of it. At $15,000 per month he has gotten the attention of a lot of professionals throughout Europe.

There are some Israelis on the ground, but apparently not as many trigger pullers as money guys who are recruiting the African mercs.

Well, it's on. Faux News is reporting the U.S. has just launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan air defense systems.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Well that's it...If the Al-Quaede backed Islamic Brotherhood can't take on the Military of a Mid-Muslim country...Dat,da,da,supermuslim(BHO) to the rescue.This is a major move and shows that the planned expanded war(WWIII) is well under way.

Curious note:The U.S. military units(Africa corp, ring a bell) put in charge of the Libyan campaign was created just one month ago...Perfect timing or planning?

It was interesting watching John Kerry and others hit the talk shows to justify the war in Libya, using the exact same arguments Bush used for Iraq. No end game? Not a concern. No exit strategy? No problem.

Amazingly, Kerry isn't even concerned about there being no congressional approval for this war. I wonder how long it will be before Kerry will say he was for the war before he was against it.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Cough, Cough,

Guys, help me out here a minute. To the best of my knowledge, since we hit Libiya with bombers for his involvement in Germany this particular camel jockey has kept his head down outside of his own country. 6 weeks ago he had a nice strong growing econmy.

We have attacked a country that has not made a move on us, nor has made any attempt in many years to do so. We have not tried to interfere with internal issues with Russia, Georgia, Chechians, North Korea, Cambodia or Rowanda or many other places.

If you were in charge of or a part of the forces there and you have been attacked from outside countries when you are dealing with an internal issue. How would you respond?

Round up all of the nationals from those countries attacking and start executing them? Find ways to launch any attack you could on their home soil? What would be off limits to you if it was your homeland being attacked by outside forces?

Brothers I fear this will be what the future may hold. Then you will have your excuse and reasons to suspend the constitution and implement martial law on the land.

Looking at this does not make sense to me why we are involved unless it is a shell game to divert peoples attention away from something else. Think about it, why are we making another country willing to do anything to hurt us when they did not attack us?

Are we now using this as the future mold for action? That if we do not like your countries politics we now have the precident set that will promote attacking it?

I am not supporting this particular camel jockey, but I am having issues supporting what would appear to be state sponsored terror and this time it is not the camel jockey starting it.


5.56

5.56 posted,
"We have attacked a country that has not made a move on us, nor has made any attempt in many years to do so. We have not tried to interfere with internal issues with Russia, Georgia, Chechians, North Korea, Cambodia or Rowanda or many other places".

Russian and Chinese A.O. are off limits by order of the NWO.

Very interesting.
I've heard that there are a lot of American mercs in Burma right now, doing sort of a mercenary/missionary thing and helping out the Christian rebels there. They may be getting a little extra incentive by the CIA too. No doubt they are a LOT more effective than conventional missionaries.

The western mercs working for Kadhafi are probably serving as his personal security detail and similar roles.

Like it or not, mercs are making up an increasing composition of modern warfighting forces, and I'm positive that this will increase at an even faster rate in the near future. In fact, I won't be surprised if some countries start outsourcing their entire military.

Walfred
You must be young. Where did we get involved in the past?
Vietnam: we went to war to punish a country that asked Goodyear rubber and Shell oil to pay a part of their profits back to the country. They had no Air force, no Navy but it was needed to protect the people of the United States.
Iraq: We went to war to prevent a man we placed in office from gaining the materials to possibly make an Atomic weapon to bring to the USA and harm us.
Now we have Libya who has a few old planes and a S#$t load of oil. Instead of using our "SMART BOMBS" we send in 120 cruise missiles to hit 20 targets. Now we have millions of Libyans ready to go to Jihad against us who last week were in the streets practicing freedom and the American way.
The answer MONEY. The bankers want troops on the ground so they can loan money and reap profits.

I was referring to recent history...Events since 911 show clearly no obstructing the RUS/CHIN is the order of the day from the NWO....

This is an internal civil war and none of our bees wax . If the rebels want freedom, they can earn it .

2% of the worlds oil is not worth it for the US to get involved .

That's exactly right. They should EARN their freedom like we did. Maybe then they would appreciate it (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan) and work hard to defend and maintain it.

Like I said before; if the barbarians over there want to fight, let them tear one another apart.

Control is not about oil per-se it is about the use of the dollar in all trade so the Fed gets a cut of the action.
Follow the yellow brick road

I don't want to be too picky, but the French sorta helped us a little bit, too.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Control is about control, and money, whether gold, oil, or scraps of printed cotton, is the primary means of control.

Saddam was not threatening to use nukes; like Iran, he was threatening to denominate his oil in a currency besides the FRN.

As for the strategic significance of Libya:

History so dictates, as recently as WW2, that Libya makes for a fine N. African beachhead.

The irony of the uber-tyranical U.N. going after Quadaffi, is the stuff of classic parody, but in a world gone utterly insane, it makes great sense!

Apparently the criminals in the cesspool on the Potomac have never read the Just War Doctrine.

The only legitimate reason for war is in self defense.

Who gave US the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations so long as those affairs pose no direct threat to the safety of America?

Did the ruler of Libya make any threats towards the US?

Did Libya attack the US or attempt to endanger the lives of US citizens?

Did obummer obtain congressional approval per the constitution to attack another sovereign country?

Would obummer pack his bags and leave office if the President of another country...such as Putin...told him to "get the hell out"???

Would obummer still claim that people had the right to revolt if the militia began active operations to restore freedom in this country???


Comments from a couple of hypocrites...

Joe Biden: War Without Congress Authorization Should Warrant Impeachment

Sen. Joe Biden threatens to initiate impeachment if President Bush acts militarily against Iran without congressional authorization. Speech at the Scott County Democratic Party banquet, Davenport, Iowa on December 14, 2007.


Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH5pSUJ2dKU

"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." - Senator Barack Obama December 20, 2007


SOURCE:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

This is just another case of our government over reaching it's powers, they claim it's to keep him from killing his countries civilians but it seems more likely to be the same radical Muslim group from out of his country that he is fighting against just like in Egypt.
So the million dollar question is why is our government helping this radical group obtain power so easily???

Im in favor of selling any and all of those revolutionary groups in any country guns. But im not in favor of giving them any aid or having our boys die for their freedom.


That isnt why i pay taxes. (then again at this point i really just pay taxes to not be thrown in prison. it isnt like the current government actually preserves my rights or anything)

Article 1 section 8 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission.

White House now says goal in Libya is regime change, installing a democratic system.

Don't worry. The country's in the best of hands. :rolleyes:

Onward and upward,
airforce

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HQeQ8Iyi

Moscow calls for cease-fire in Libya as Gates visits

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/03/22/russia.gates.visit/

China calls for immediate cease-fire in Libya

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_on_re_as/as_china_libya_3

Who had the best speech?

Barack Obama

Muammar Khadafi

Winston Churchill

I don't know about you guys, but I think Obama came in a solid third place.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The quote of the day comes from Stacy McCain :

There it is, in one sentence.

Onward and upward,
airforce

It is always about the (fiat) money, and Libya is no exception:

"It is incomprehensible to me that while credit-worthy small businesses in Vermont and throughout the country could not receive affordable loans, the Federal Reserve was providing tens of billions of dollars in credit to a bank that is substantially owned by the Central Bank of Libya," Sanders said in a written statement.

A Federal Reserve spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that the central bank has received the letter and will respond. She declined to comment further.

In the letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and others, Sanders asked why the central bank made at least 46 emergency, low-interest loans to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Central Bank of Libya owns a 59 percent stake.

Sanders also asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner why the Treasury Department earlier this month let the Libya-controlled bank skirt the economic sanctions against Libya.

Sanders also questioned why the Bahrain-based Arab Banking Corp. is even allowed to operate branches inside the United States.

The Treasury Department responded to a FoxNews.com inquiry by saying that Libyan-owned banks that were incorporated outside of Libya were allowed to continue transactions. The Arab Banking Corp. isn't incorporated in Libya, but U.S. sanctions call for freezing Libya's financial interest in the bank.

The Fed transactions were made public earlier this year as a result of a Sanders provision in the financial regulatory law that forced the U.S. central bank to reveal which financial institutions it bailed out during the financial crisis from 2007 to 2010.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-reserve-bails-bank-libya/#ixzz1IlTGBMge

Wow! It's a war after all!

White House says shutdown will delay pay to troops

Well, so much for that "kinetic military action," or whatever the heck they were calling it. :rolleyes:

Honestly, you just can't make this stuff up.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Sure you can!

If you are the illegitimate president of an egregiously corrupt government in a nation that legalizes murder by way of abortion, and labels honest money advocates as "domestic terrorists."

When you run a country like that, you can make up anything you want.

Historically, it is referred to as autocratic fiat, and typically reserved for cleptocratic tyrannies.

We are watching the birth pains of the next world war. Libya has something Russia, China, and the Western world want, OIL. All these super powers are desperate to control it and wish to install puppet governments friendly to their regime.

Why are regimes that have maintained firm control since WW2 suddenly being cast to the wolves by their handlers the super powers?

Take note also of the "resistance". Exactly who are they? What do they want? While many of these people surely desire real freedom; many also want a Islamic state.

Before the dust settles we will see a new Arabic union consisting of Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Turkey, Syria and probably Iran and others, allied with Russia against the US and Israel. The US will be too preoccupied with it's own internal strife caused by its economic collapse to do much more than stand and watch.