U.S. and allies launch first missiles against Gadhafi forces

[Lady Cop]

Allied jets reduced an administrative building inside Colonel Gaddafi's Tripoli compound to rubble last night in a massive display of firepower.

The three-story block is close to the dictator's iconic tent and around 300 of the his supporters were believed to be in the area at the time although it was unclear if anyone was hurt.

Libya claims 64 civilians have so far been killed in bombing raids, which have prompted Russia and Arab leaders to express their reservations.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z1HE3HBX9H

[Cynical Ninja]

Tactiful exact pinpointed precision is a trademark of American technical superiority. When they say civilians have been killed they really mean the terrorist have used them as a human shield. It is a tactic they use constantly.

Unfortunately the intelligence is not as "pinpoint" as the weapons technology, marketplaces, civilian homes, farms and wedding partys have all been "pinpointed" by missiles in the past thanks to bogus intelligence.

[Cracker]

Is Libya our fight? Are we interlopers? Can we make the rules for the rest of the world? Is Obama worse than Bush?



"Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.

The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.

Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that 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.”

Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery - which makes no sense.

Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours. America should use military force only to protect its vital national interests."

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute. (Irish political oranization/educational charity)


Rest of this commentary can be found at its source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011...n-/?page=2

[Cynical Ninja]

The action in Libya is santioned by the UN vinegar tits.

[shitstorm]

The action in Libya is santioned by the UN vinegar tits.

And?

[username]

I said in an earlier post that I don't think we went in to this with a clear "end game" (as everyone is calling it) which I think was a mistake. However, I find it sort of ironic that members of congress are just now questionning our involvement. Maybe Barack did go beyond the War Powers Resolution (too lazy to read it right now) but before we went in, I distinctly recall that he was getting pressure from both sides to entire in to the conflict in some capacity. The news back then read like this:


Ready for another war? Congressional leaders push for U.S. action in Libya
Caroline May - The Daily Caller Caroline May - The Daily Caller – Fri Mar 4, 3:27 pm ET
With the Obama administration hesitating to take definitive action in Libya, a bipartisan group of congressional leaders are pushing to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians and rebels from Muammar Gaddafi’s air force — a decision experts say would amount to an act of war.

“The people of Libya are not asking for foreign troops on the ground,” Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “I believe that the global community cannot be on the sidelines while airplanes are allowed to bomb and strafe. A no-fly-zone is not a long-term proposition, assuming the outcome is what we all desire, and I believe we ought to be ready to implement it as necessary.”

John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleague.

“We could neutralize Libyan air defenses and set up a no-fly zone,” McCain said Thursday standing next to his long-time ally Joe Lieberman, who added a moral argument for intervention.

Congress has already taken steps in that direction. On March 1 the Senate passed a non-binding resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya.

The chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Florida Republican Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers have also expressed a desire to impose a no-fly zone.

But the administration remains reluctant to take those steps, and many are wary of potentially entering into another war.

[username]

Hmmm, and that March 1^st vote...

Senate Passes Resolution Calling for No-Fly Zone Over Libya
By Dan Friedman

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 | 9:19 p.m.
The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain. But the resolution puts the full Senate on record behind an aggressive posture and could bolster a growing number of calls for the United States—which has already sent warships carrying hundreds of Marines into the region—or its allies to take limited military steps in support of Libyans seeking to overthrow Qaddafi. Earlier on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that all options to address the Libyan crisis are on the table.

“There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a no-fly zone," Kirk said in a statement.

[Cracker]

I was just posting that to make the libs defend Obama's war. hahahahahaha Shoe is on the other foot, mutherfuckers. hahahaaha

[Cracker]

The action in Libya is santioned by the UN vinegar tits.

Unlike the pussy countries of the world, the UN doesn't own the US, tiny dancer.

The UN is like the UK, big talk until it is time to act. Then they look towards our shores for real help...

[username]

I was just posting that to make the libs defend Obama's war. hahahahahaha Shoe is on the other foot, mutherfuckers. hahahaaha

Evil bitch.

[Cynical Ninja]

The action in Libya is santioned by the UN vinegar tits.

And?

The action in Iraq was not UN sanctioned thus making any attempt by cracker to compare Libya to Iraq spurious and meaningless.

[IMaDick]

The action in Libya is santioned by the UN vinegar tits.

And?

The action in Iraq was not UN sanctioned thus making any attempt by cracker to compare Libya to Iraq spurious and meaningless.

Hey grapefruit, we own The UN, we pay more than 50% of it's bills, we also pay more than 50% of NATO's bills. If we stop paying the bills neither of them would exist.

and yet you think we need UN approval to act?

[Maggot]

Fuck the U.N. What happened to congressional approval? Bush at least got permission for Iraq. Obama is a puppet.

[Cracker]

I was just posting that to make the libs defend Obama's war. hahahahahaha Shoe is on the other foot, mutherfuckers. hahahaaha

Evil bitch.

Hahahahaha! Laughed my ass off over here!

[Cracker]

What I have proven is that some of you libs have NO REAL ANTI-WAR CONVICTIONS. Your political decision making is formed around your hate of one person, George W. (two, if you count is papa). You support Obama because you like him. Whatever he does is fine with you, even if it is the same things George W. did, or worse.

In essence, you have the political savvy of a ghetto-dweller. hahahahaha

[Cynical Ninja]

I was just posting that to make the libs defend Obama's war. hahahahahaha Shoe is on the other foot, mutherfuckers. hahahaaha

I am neither a liberal nor a partisan cheerleader like you, I was against the invasion of Iraq and I am against taking any action in Libya.

[Duchess]

Who are the liberals?

[Cynical Ninja]

In essence, you have the political savvy of a ghetto-dweller. hahahahaha

The magma of hate still bubbling and boiling just beneath the surface.

[Cracker]

In essence, you have the political savvy of a ghetto-dweller. hahahahaha

The magma of hate still bubbling and boiling just beneath the surface.

Why is the truth always "hate" to you? That is a seriously skewed perspective.

You think ghetto-dwellers DIDN'T vote for Obama? Really? That's what you are saying? Because it's bullshit. I proved my point. You make your shit up as you go along.

[Cracker]

Who are the liberals?

The ones who talk about Fox News all the time. And call it Faux News.

I don't even watch the news. I read the paper. But anyone who is "liberal" assumes I am glued to that crazy fuck Glenn Beck's backside. I think he's a nutfuck most of the time, too.

Except for uncovering ACORN. I give him a point for that.

Liberals, to me, are the whine-asses of the world. They target an individual and bitch and moan and blame that target for everything, even years later. Liberals also think money can cure everything and form political opinions based on what is in it for them. Conservatives, in my personal POV, are more individually-minded. We take responsibility for our own lives, with little gov't interference, and we would like others to do the same.

I'm sure there is a technical definition somewhere, but that is how Cracker sees it.