United States attacks Libya
Read Time:1 Minute, 3 Second
The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, Fox News has learned.
The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.
Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Qaddafi, the U.S. was poised to kick off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.
“We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Qaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities,” Clinton said.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions.
French fighter jets fired the first shots at Qaddafi’s troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Here I am to be a total buzzkill, I’m like Underdog only cuter and not a dog.
We should be nowhere near this. Oh and the comment we can’t let a tyrant say no mercy or whatever the hell it was, to his people, um where has the coalition been on Sudan/ Darfur, when hundreds of thousands were being killed. Oh Jess, you stupid, stupid girl they don’t have oil there and big business interests that need to be protected, so go now and kick your own ass for being so stupid. This ends my buzzkill moment for the day.
Jess,
I have bad news. I agree with you and that is going to make you look bad. I agree on philosophical grounds, but I am glad we are in Libya, anyway, though I acknowledge our presence is nothing short of imperialism.
We are entering the dispute as a humanitarian effort to protect Libya’s oil from its owner. It so happens that he is killing his own people, you know, the ones shooting at him, taking over his cities and overthrowing his government. Were Obama faced with a such a threat, he would round the soldiers trying to assassinate him up, kiss them, and buy them donuts and tell stories through the wee hours of the morning.
The United States has every right to replace Libya’s tyrannical government and the one that follows it and the one that follows the next one so long as the following three conditions are in place:
1. We don’t like the government in control.
2. The government in control is willing to use lethal force to defend itself against lethal internal militaristic attacks.
3. The U.N. supports our imperialism.
Libya has no voice in this matter, as they cannot be objective.
We have or have had the same rights with Sudan, the Ivory Coast (almost, so close), Rwanda, Somalia etc., but we did not exercise it because in those cases no one was shooting at their own people. In all of the aforementioned cases, the genocide / atrocities involved shooting at the enemy, but the revolutionaries in Libya are Gaddafi’s friends. The administration has said in no uncertain terms that in the case of Libya, they think the leader may do unspeakable things. We have every right to protect the nation’s oil against its owner and against our interpretation of his intentions to commit horrific crimes in an effort to defend himself. Not only do we have a right, but an obligation.
In Rwanda, for example, we did not have any such obligation. Does Rwanda even have oil?
Jess,
Oh, and one more thing: you are one my favorite bloggers, even though you have no blog. You should either get a blog or join Mad Mikes America, or both. I am sure you have an open invitation to join here.
[…] attacking them now. http://www.exposix.com/members/ans…tacks-Libya.html Some Missle Pictures: https://madmikesamerica.com/2011/03…e-against-libya/ From a Soldier: http://militarygear.com/asp/2011/0…us-attacks-libya […]
Well, I did say I wanted Tomahawk missiles, but I also said I wanted them shoved up Qaddafi’s butt. I guess this will be a good start. We don’t need boots on the ground, just enough bombs for his damned Merc’s to figure that they aren’t getting paid enough for what’s going to happen. Then let the opposition and the Arabs drag his ass before a world court.
There is no doubt that the power behind the throne of this attack is the US military, but the French to a large degree are keen because they see a failed Libyan state rebounding on France with 10s of thousands of refugees. They don’t need that. The British to a lesser degree for the same reason.
Obama was correct to wait for a consensus.
I agree that he was correct to wait to go through the United Nations as opposed to a unilateral attack. However, if he waits for party concensus on all time-sensitive issues, he is paralyzed. I am not saying that this is definitely wrong, but only pointing out that it makes him less effective and less of a leader and more of a follower.
No boots on the ground please, unless it is Arab boots on the ground.
Do Arabs even make boots?
er….excuse me?….Thin ice I suppose..no change there then…British Prime Minister ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron asked for a ‘No Fly Zone’ about 3 weeks back and was basically told to ‘fuck off’ by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
All of a sudden it’s ‘The USA attacks Libya’????
Helloooo peeps…sniff the coffee here…The US ain’t in charge anymore (and I really regret that as I felt safer when you were) but Britain..this tiny ‘dot’ in the ocean…made the call and Obama finally had to go with us – or look even more inadequate than he already does….France said ‘Go Britain!’ as did a few other European countries.
Frankly…we were ‘going’ regardless of the USA (and I am sad about that) but let’s be honest…Obama (nice guy though he is) spends so long deciding, that it’s all over by the time ‘he’ gets there.
Soz America. Much to the regret of the western world…you ain’t in charge anymore.
For what it’s worth…I so so wish you were…
I’d feel a damn sight safer for one thing…er…Obama…er…oh yeah…perhaps I wouldn’t…
Can old Ronnie be resurrected????
What planet do you live on? Jeez, a different one to me for sure.
Who the fuck are you? You talk nonsense. What should the headline read: America, France, England, Canada, Australia, and a boatload of other people attacked Libya. We’re in America you idiot!!!!
In defense of Four D, I would just like to say
THe OH gang can’t get together what they want. The only thing they know for sure is they hate BO and that comes out in the words they say, and I don’t agree with talking about the leader of one’s country in such a way. As to Libya I’m not happy with it but understand the need for it. Go USA! Bomb the shit out of ’em!
Now it begins. I’ll be interested in hearing the position of the Hard Left. A few days ago some of them were whining because we weren’t helping the rebels, and I wager you that now they’ll be whining because we are!! You can’t please an Obama hater.
I love Obama. I would marry him if I were a homosexual and if I were in a state where I could. I certainly would not condemn him for his ever-changing stances on DOMA, Unions in Wisconsin, or Libya. I give him credit for following the direction of his party. He very carefully waits until the Democratic Party makes it position solidly known with consensus and then he joins them.
As Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin reputedly said: “There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.”
Bush, with all his faults, took the lead. Obama is often a follower. I am not saying anything is necessarily wrong with that. Maybe we need more careful leaders in Washington, and fewer rash ones. However, being a follower is not generally a quality one seeks in a leader.