The Libyan Crisis

**OhOh** · 03-04-2011, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

required permission from Uncle Sugar foremost

AS well as the US congress I believe? Another illegal act.

**Rural Surin** · 03-04-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

required permission from Uncle Sugar foremost

AS well as the US congress I believe? Another illegal act.

That's never stopped the powers to be in the past {or present}. When was the last American military engagement that "they" sought official constitutional or Congressional approval? They find a way to usurp any such formalities. Doesn't matter really, as any Congressional majority would extend the green light - if you haven't noticed, the Corporate Military Industrial Complex has these upstanding law-makers in there pockets.

**Tom Sawyer** · 03-04-2011, 10:12 PM

I hope everyone here recognizes the Libya-vs-West/Nato thingy on CNN-BBC for what it really is - a deliberately laid distraction away from the pro-democracy demos sweeping the US-supported dictatorships across the Arab world.

Libya is the BAD guy we must help the 'freedom loving people' -while we shield your eyes from those even worse than Gaddafi - like Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, etc - surely no one is stupid enough not to see this.

The spin by State Dept (Clinton) is that "we waited too long before and learned our lessons (Rwanda, Bosnia) so we're acting faster this time."

Bullshit - they can see their middle-east ballance falling apart before their eyes and so they are acting immediately. Either that, or they are actually orchestrating the entire thing from the start!

**sabang** · 03-04-2011, 10:49 PM

Would those protesting against the Nato airstrikes in Libya have held their peace and quiet if Nato had done nothing, and Qadaffi's armed forces taught the 'counter revolutionaries' a bloody lesson? A question you can individually ask yourselves- but I suspect, in most cases, not.

And who then would you have blamed, in your humanitarian angst? That would be Nato, and the US.

**Mr Gribbs** · 03-04-2011, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Are you suffering from late stage AIDS dementia, or are you an ultra-sensitive French gal who can't handle the truth? This war was started from Elysee Palace, by the French President, who happened to be elected by the French People. The fact there has been hardly any protest, especially any of note against this war in France, tells me the French support it.

I might remind you, Mr. Gibbs, though even this new little corporate imperial adventure is looked upon as an concerted French/British/NATO effort, we all know that the Americans initiated hostilities and are really calling the shots. In these contemporary times, one should surely know that foreign military activity worldwide required permission from Uncle Sugar foremost - regardless of the disguised premise of an "allied" coalition. This is obviously the case in Libya.

And you know this how? Sitting in on meetings? I'm not taking your word, there is no proof every leader in the world wakes up and the first thing he does is get his orders for the day from the US. How did the Americans initiate hositilites?

**Mr Gribbs** · 03-04-2011, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

A fraction of the UK population protested against the war in Iraq, 5 million (it wasn't 5 million either) is a drop in the bucket out of a population of 70 million. .

Closer to 55 million, but when one postulates as wildly as you, I guess it can be overlooked as just a final small squirt in a toilet full of runny shit.

The UK people have been relatively silent over these wars, they've also made billions of them, and made money from the worlds dictators, like Gadhafi. Almost every person in the UK supports the UK troops who happen to make their living by killing innocent people, outside of a few who profess the Islamic faith.

**Tom Sawyer** · 03-04-2011, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

Would those protesting against the Nato airstrikes in Libya have held their peace and quiet if Nato had done nothing, and Qadaffi's armed forces taught the 'counter revolutionaries' a bloody lesson? A question you can individually ask yourselves- but I suspect, in most cases, not.

And who then would you have blamed, in your humanitarian angst? That would be Nato, and the US.

I'm not protesting against airstrikes against Gaddafi - drop one right on his head. Did you miss my main point? It's a deliberate and convenient CNN-fed distraction from the bigger goings-on.. (e.g. bury the other pro-democracy movements as we can't let those grow!)

**sabang** · 03-04-2011, 11:54 PM

^ In the case of Saud & Bahrain, you certainly have a point. Not really so in Egypt & Yemen though. Will we try to interpret & influence matters to our own benefit? You bet. Considering Mubarak, arsehole that he was, was 'our' arsehole, the western response to the democracy uprising there was, by the standards of our recent history, quite mild and quite enlightened. Israel was not amused.

**foreigner** · 04-04-2011, 12:20 AM

obama had a meeting with Clinton, S. Rice (UN) & Samantha Power before ignoring military advice & joining into the libya mess.

all 3 womens are pro palestinian
Ms Power is a catholic of red headed irish decent, she has made her reputation by calling for aggressive action to protect defenseless civilians
in humanitarian crises around the planet
he books tell of civilians fighting for identity & rights globally
She was integral in nominating Mary Robinson to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, despite Robinson's record involving international efforts towards our beloved, benevolent & chosen ally, Israel
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...ower_2.flv.jpg

**StrontiumDog** · 04-04-2011, 12:30 AM

Libya rebels battle Gaddafi forces in oil town | Reuters

Libya rebels battle Gaddafi forces in oil town

Sat, Apr 2 2011

By Alexander Dziadosz
BREGA, Libya | Sun Apr 3, 2011 1:02pm EDT

(Reuters) - Warplanes flew over Brega on Sunday as rebels fought troops loyal to Muammar Gaddafi for control of the east Libyan oil town, rebel fighters said.

Near the eastern gate of Brega, a sparsely populated settlement spread over more than 25 km (15 miles), aircraft and the thud of explosions and machinegun fire could be heard.

Black smoke rose further west and hundreds of cars carrying volunteer rebel fighters streamed away from the town. Later, half a dozen rockets struck near the gate.

Rebels waiting there held their ground while the silhouettes of men and trucks could be seen scouting the desert far beyond the road. Four rockets burst from their launchers and zipped across the wasteland toward Brega.

Fighting also raged between the university and the western gate near the entrance to the Sirte Oil Company.

"Those planes that circled last night didn't hit anything," rebel fighter Osama Abdullah said, suggesting the absence of air strikes was the result of NATO taking command of the coalition forces from France, the United States and Britain.

"(French President Nicolas) Sarkozy is great but NATO is not," he said.

A Western coalition air strike killed 13 rebels late on Friday near Brega's eastern gate. The rebel leadership called the bombing an unfortunate mistake and said air strikes were still needed against Gaddafi's better-armed units.

A friend of Abdullah who gave his name as Youssef said: "We need weapons that can fight against the tanks and Grads (rockets) that Gaddafi has."

Comments from rebel volunteer fighters near the gate marking Brega's eastern limit suggested that better trained anti-Gaddafi army units continue to battle government forces around the town's university 15 km to the west, without any clear outcome.

"Gaddafi wants Brega because of the oil. He is focusing on Brega and the rebels have the same idea," Ahmed Mansour, an engineer with the Sirte Oil Company living in Brega, said.

"BACK AND FORTH"

The fighting in Brega has gone on for four days, with the rebels holding their ground after beating a chaotic retreat from near Gaddafi's home town of Sirte more than 300 km to the west.

Describing the battle in Brega, rebel fighter Mahdi Idriss said: "It is still back and forth."

"The center of the clashes is in the middle and around the university," he said.

The rebel leadership has sought to break the stalemate by deploying heavier weapons and a firmer line of command.

They also have sought to keep the less disciplined volunteers, and journalists, several kms (miles) east of the front line.

The caravan of lightly-armed volunteer fighters has spent days dashing back and forth along the coast road on Brega's eastern outskirts, scrambling away in their cars and pick-ups as the Gaddafi forces fire rockets toward their positions.

An armoured personnel carrier and a steady trickle of vehicles carrying heavy weapons drove back and forth along the road to Brega, past the charred remains of several vehicles.

A few dozen fighters were praying near the eastern gate. Some others were busy trying to climb a disconnected telegraph pole to raise the rebel flag.

The volunteers tend to get on well with the rebel army but a small scuffle broke out near Brega's eastern gate on Sunday as a soldier berated them for their lack of discipline.

"These revolutionaries go in and fire and that's it. They don't have any tactics, these guys. They cause problems," said the soldier, Mohammed Ali.

Former Air Force Major Jalid al-Libie told Reuters in Benghazi that a brigade of professional soldiers had been formed and it would bring order to the rebel army at the frontline.

"We are reorganizing our ranks. We have formed our first brigade. It is entirely formed from ex-military defectors and people who've come back from retirement."

Asked about numbers, he said he could not reveal that but added: "It's quality that matters."

Libie, a former fighter pilot, said he had joined the rebels at the outset of the uprising.

He conceded that the enthusiasm of the rebel volunteer army was not matched by much military prowess.

"Now this brigade will establish authority on the ground," he said. "Before the end of the week you will see a different kind of fighting and that will tip the balance.

**StrontiumDog** · 04-04-2011, 12:33 AM

Libyan official in Athens to deliver Gaddafi message

Gaddafi sends envoy to deliver message to Greece

Libyan official in Athens to deliver Gaddafi message

Sunday, 03 April 2011

Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi

ATHENS (Agencies) Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi arrived in Athens on Sunday to deliver a message from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to the Greek Prime Minister, a senior Greek government official said.

"They (Libyan government) requested to send an envoy with a message for Prime Minister George Papandreou and that is why he is in Athens," the official said.

Earlier, Tunisia's official TAP news agency said Obeidi crossed overland into Tunisia and was heading to Djerba airport, near the border. It said Obeidi was not on an official visit to Tunisia and had not been in contact with Tunisian officials.

In Tripoli, Libyan officials were not immediately available to comment on Obeidi's movements.

He served as prime minister under Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the late 1970s, and later was head of the General People's Congress, or parliament. His current post is minister of state for European affairs.

Last week Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa crossed into Tunisia and then flew from Djerba airport to southern England. The British government said he had defected.

Defected Libyan FM Mousa Koussa

Kussa could hold the key to persuading other key regime figures to turn their back on Gaddafi, analysts said Sunday.

But they warned that the Libyan leader's close-knit inner circle of family and clan members is unlikely to be brought down by the defection of a handful of ministers.

Kussa apparently surprised Libya and the West when he touched down at Farnborough Airport southwest of London on Wednesday and announced he was resigning his role.

The man seen as a close confidante of Gaddafi is now reportedly being debriefed by British intelligence agents at a safe house.

He has not been seen in public and there has been no indication of how long he intends to stay or why he chose to come to Britain.

Dr Alia Brahimi, Global Security Research Fellow at the London School of Economics, said Kussa's defection will show others "that people very close to Kadhafi have made the judgement that this is a sinking ship and it's time to defect now."

Brahimi said high-profile figures such as Kussa who were involved in bringing Libya back into the international fold in the last decade will conclude that he has deserted the Libyan leader because he sees a grim future even if the regime defeats the rebel insurgency.

"We can assume there would be number of those people around him that would perhaps make a similar judgement: that even if Kadhafi wins, Libya would go back to the years of isolationism when life was very, very hard," she told AFP.

However, Kussa's defection has coincided with a series of reverses for the rebels, who have been forced into retreat as the better-organised pro-Kadhafi forces have fought back despite coming under continued Western air strikes.

Shashank Joshi, an associate fellow at London-based military think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said that while the defection is significant, it does not necessarily follow that the regime is falling apart.

"This sends a long-term signal and it will make other Arab countries who may have been backing Kadhafi think twice," he told AFP.

"But Libya is highly clan-based and family-based. At the core of it is a connection between Kadhafi and his clan, like a spinal cord."

The regime is now focused on the war, Joshi said, "and so the defection of an oil minister would not be the end of the world."

**Mr Gribbs** · 04-04-2011, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I hope everyone here recognizes the Libya-vs-West/Nato thingy on CNN-BBC for what it really is - a deliberately laid distraction away from the pro-democracy demos sweeping the US-supported dictatorships across the Arab world.

Libya is the BAD guy we must help the 'freedom loving people' -while we shield your eyes from those even worse than Gaddafi - like Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, etc - surely no one is stupid enough not to see this.

The spin by State Dept (Clinton) is that "we waited too long before and learned our lessons (Rwanda, Bosnia) so we're acting faster this time."

Bullshit - they can see their middle-east ballance falling apart before their eyes and so they are acting immediately. Either that, or they are actually orchestrating the entire thing from the start!

In your first sentence you claim Libya is a distraction to take the peoples attention away from what is going in US supported dictatorships. Then you claim this whole thing going on in the Arab world is being orchestrated by the US. I also believe you claimed the pro democracy movement going on in the Arab world is a CIA creation on another thread. I heard of covering your ass, hedging your bet, etc; but you're coming off as a lunatic. Take a position and stick with it.

**sabang** · 04-04-2011, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Then you claim this whole thing going on in the Arab world is being orchestrated by the US.

I do not believe that for one minute. These protest movements are home grown. Several of them are quite discomfiting to us in the West. Perhaps the most surprising thing of all is the failure of our expensive intelligence services (how much do you spend on the CIA

) to see them coming. Even Mossad was caught with it's pants down. When the poo hit the fan, it seems they- with all the resources at their disposal, were mired in the same myopic complacency as the general population.

**OhOh** · 04-04-2011, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

Would those protesting against the Nato airstrikes in Libya have held their peace and quiet if Nato had done nothing, and Qadaffi's armed forces taught the 'counter revolutionaries' a bloody lesson? A question you can individually ask yourselves- but I suspect, in most cases, not.

And who then would you have blamed, in your humanitarian angst? That would be Nato, and the US.

If independently verified evidence was produced of the Libyan Government massacring civilians I would have a different opinion.

The problem is that this was always an armed insurrection. One group of Libyans decided that they would chance their arm to overthrow the existing government. Encouraged no doubt by "western" government outbursts and "private" assurances.

The Libyan Government has attacked these armed insurgents and unfortunately both the insurgents, Libyan Government forces and civilians are caught in the civil war. as such this civil war was brought about by armed insurgents who are now being held to account.

You cannot start wars based on what you consider to be a potential outcome of someone else's action. This is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan which many believe were and still are illegal. I know some countries believe in a first strike doctrine but all the UN members have agreed not to.

Background

The UNSC passed a resolution which called for, no demanded, an immediate cease fire. The Libyan Government accepted the resolution that evening and called a cease fire. The UNSC resolution gave the management of the resolution to a panel of experts who were given the power to advise the UNSC to suspend the resolution if the primary demand, the cease fire was not met.

The US, French and the UK governments ignored this cease fire offer illegally, they weren't the decision makers, they had no evidence of any civilian deaths or attacks. Since that decision all acts by these UN members have been illegal.

There was no "independently verified evidence" that the attack on Benghazi either took place or was imminent. The US have even implied they were relying on "media sources" for their intelligence.

If the resolution had called for arming and training the insurgents, attacking government forces in barrack, attacking government forces fighting a civil war, bombing and shooting missiles at unarmed civilian and civilian occupied areas it would have been vetoed as these acts are against the basic non intervention of sovereign states clause in the UN charter. All these actions have been and continue to be tactics used by the now NATO forces.

The NATO Commander last week stressed that they would adhere strictly to stopping attacks on civilians or civilian occupied areas. There are now reports of Instructors being in country, arms being imported and possible marines being deployed. All of which are not in the resolution and are explicitly forbidden.

Today we have a lady, who is reported to represent the armed insurgents giving a press conference. She has called the warring party, of her side, her army. As such NATO should, if following their declared intent, to stop attacking civilians etc. be attacking the "armed insurgent army", should they not?

**Butterfly** · 04-04-2011, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Libya is the BAD guy we must help the 'freedom loving people' -while we shield your eyes from those even worse than Gaddafi - like Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, etc - surely no one is stupid enough not to see this

that also crossed my mind, with protest in SA and Bahrain that were followed by a violent crackdown, the Libyan mess is suddenly becoming very convenient and might stop the "spread" of revolts in the region that would certainly bring to power certain elements of religious fanatics.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Bullshit - they can see their middle-east ballance falling apart before their eyes and so they are acting immediately.

That's basically what's happening. It's falling apart, the dream of AQ is finally coming to reality, and they need to stop it.

**Panda** · 04-04-2011, 07:59 AM

The difference between a dictator and a friendly government to the west is based purely on of how much use that ruler can be to the west. The west, and in particular USA since it has so much military and economic power, choose their friends and allies based on self interest rather than on any humanitarian or democratic principles. Saudi Arabia of course being a prime example.

All this moralizing about crimes against humanity and democracy are purely designed for the domestic voting audience.

When an uprising or coup occurs in one of these countries that are economically or militarily important to the west, western leaders are forced to pick a side. And of course they always will pick a side that they think will be in the best economic and military interests of the west. This can lead to anti-western anger among the oppressed populace of countries where dictators are supported by the west. Hence the rise of Al Qaeda which is essentially an anti-imperialist organization under a radical Islamic banner. An enemy of the wests own creation.

Democracy and human rights is therefore only supported by the west in countries where such ideals are beneficial. Equally, the west is quite prepared to support ruthless dictators if it is beneficial to themselves. Egypt being until recently, a prime example of this. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia being a current examples.

What it all comes down to is that meddling in other countries internal affairs for profit by western powers is a ticking time bomb. As we have seen with the chain reaction of revolts in the Middle East recently.

The dilemma now for the west and in particular its biggest player, USA, is which sides in which country to support, be it democracy or dictators.
It must be a real headache for the US and other western foreign policy advisers who thought they had the lid screwed down pretty tight on Middle Eastern politics. Now the game is changing in many places and they must figure out a way to either bribe or threaten the changing regimes in order to bring them under western control.

**StrontiumDog** · 04-04-2011, 12:24 PM

Sons seek Gaddafi's removal: Report

Apr 4, 2011

Sons seek Gaddafi's removal: Report

Seif (left) and Saadi-el-Gaddafi (right), both sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, are reportedly proposing a transition to a constitutional democracy that would include their father's removal from power. -- SPLIT PHOTO: AFP

WASHINGTON - AT LEAST two sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are proposing a transition to a constitutional democracy that would include their father's removal from power, The New York Times reported late on Sunday.

Citing an unnamed diplomat and a Libyan official briefed on the plan, the newspaper said the transition would be spearheaded by one of Gaddafi's sons, Seif al-Islam el-Gaddafi.

It is not clear whether Colonel Gaddafi, 68, has signed on to the reported proposal backed by his sons, Seif and Saadi el-Gaddafi, the report said. But one person close to these sons said the father appeared willing to go along, the paper noted.

The two sons 'want to move toward change for the country' without their father, The Times quoted one person close to the Seif and Saadi camp as saying.

'They have hit so many brick walls with the old guard, and if they have the go-ahead, they will bring the country up quickly.' According to The Times, the idea may reflect longstanding differences among Gaddafi's sons.

While Seif and Saadi have leaned toward Western-style economic and political openings, Colonel Gaddafi's sons Khamis and Mutuassim are considered hard-liners, the paper said. Khamis leads a pro-government militia, the report noted. And Mutuassim, a national security adviser, has been considered a rival to Seif in the competition to succeed their father. -- AFP

**StrontiumDog** · 04-04-2011, 12:32 PM

Washington agrees to extend air strikes in Libya

Brega battle rages as another Gaddafi man quits

Washington agrees to extend air strikes in Libya

Monday, 04 April 2011

Libyan protesters head towards an area where they are engaged in street battles with Gaddafi forces near Brega

WASHINGTON/Brega, LIBYA (AlArabiya.net, Agencies) The United States agreed to extend air strikes in Libya into Monday as heavy fighting escalated at the oil town of Brega and a fresh defection gave a new blow to Muammar Gaddafi.

The U.S. air strikes, part of a coalition effort to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces, would continue through Monday at NATO's request, because of "recent poor weather in Libya," the Pentagon said late on Sunday.

The U.S. military had planned to begin withdrawing its combat jets and Tomahawk missiles from the air campaign against Libya's regime this weekend, as NATO allies were to take the lead in bombing Gaddafi's forces.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi was hit by another defection.

Former foreign minister and U.N. General Assembly president Ali Treiki became the latest official to abandon Gaddafi, after the flight to Britain of foreign minister and regime stalwart Mussa Kussa days earlier.

On the front line, revolutionaries who had entered the eastern town of Brega early on Sunday said they were staging a tactical withdrawal after being ambushed, according to AFP.

Loud explosions could still be heard from Brega's outskirts as the rebels' best-trained fighters took on the Gaddafi loyalists.

Most of the revolutionary volunteers acknowledged they lacked the military training, discipline and knowledge of the terrain to mount a frontal assault on Brega.

They said they were dependent on the protesters' few trained fighters, mostly defectors from the regular army.

"There is no commander. We are all together," said Abdul Wahed Aguri, a 28-year-old.

"We are not army. We can't move closer to Brega because we don't know where the enemy is. We don't know the area. We have to wait for the army (defectors)," he said, adding that could take a whole day.

Intermittent explosions rumbled across the desert landscape as the rebel vanguard traded rocket and artillery fire with Gaddafi forces inside the town.

Aircraft from the NATO-led coalition enforcing a no-fly zone were heard overhead. The protesters said they heard air strikes on loyalist positions in the town overnight, although there was no immediate confirmation from the alliance.

Retired U.S. general James Jones, who until last October was President Barack Obama's national security adviser, said the Libya endgame was more "vital" to Europe than to the United States.

He also acknowledged on Sunday talk shows that Gaddafi's ouster was the ultimate goal in the coalition air campaign.

**Rural Surin** · 04-04-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Are you suffering from late stage AIDS dementia, or are you an ultra-sensitive French gal who can't handle the truth? This war was started from Elysee Palace, by the French President, who happened to be elected by the French People. The fact there has been hardly any protest, especially any of note against this war in France, tells me the French support it.

I might remind you, Mr. Gibbs, though even this new little corporate imperial adventure is looked upon as an concerted French/British/NATO effort, we all know that the Americans initiated hostilities and are really calling the shots. In these contemporary times, one should surely know that foreign military activity worldwide required permission from Uncle Sugar foremost - regardless of the disguised premise of an "allied" coalition. This is obviously the case in Libya.

And you know this how? Sitting in on meetings? I'm not taking your word, there is no proof every leader in the world wakes up and the first thing he does is get his orders for the day from the US. How did the Americans initiate hositilites?

You really don't know what's going on, do ya Gibbs? There is a puppet master that clearly directs all the strings and wires. {in today's world} Usually under the safe guise of a "group pact".

**Pol the Pot** · 04-04-2011, 02:02 PM

They should shoot the sons as soon as they've caught them.

**Mid** · 04-04-2011, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

shake hands with any of them and you would be well served to count your fingers after

**Rural Surin** · 04-04-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

shake hands with any of them and you would be well served to count your fingers after

2 to 1 odds that they both come out smelling like a rose, regardless of the outcome. You know how those things work.

**Thetyim** · 04-04-2011, 02:37 PM

......

**Panda** · 04-04-2011, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

shake hands with any of them and you would be well served to count your fingers after

I imagine Gadaffies boys will be thinking the same thing about the western leaders.

They will be welcomed with open arms if they can oust their father as leader and become subservient to western needs.
Could well be a convenient compromise for both sides (Gaddafi and the west) as the rebels are pretty much an unknown quantity politically. Better to have a puppet government the west can control than instability under rebel infighting.

The rebel uprising may have started this fight, but the western powers will determine how it ends. Its not really the rebels fight anymore. They are simply players in a much bigger game now.

**sabang** · 04-04-2011, 04:25 PM

I'm not sure how this has played domestically in the Uk & France, but in the US the naysayers have been out in force.

Last week, Obama was was being lambasted for doing nothing while 'freedom and democracy were under attack'.

In this past week, he was now being lambasted by the naysayers for having no 'exit plan'- another Iraq/ Afghanistan.

Well I'll be damned- it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

But now it looks like things are going to turn out just fine. Too early to count victory just yet, but looks quite like those naysayers will have scrambled eggs a la face very soon. Ehh butterfly?

Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions