Since you started it, at least you could have done it "RIGHT" in the first place.

greg-709692, Somewhere I do believe that it is against International Law for one nations (UK) to mount an operation to assassinate the head of another sovereign nation! We'd have them crawling all over the States looking for Obama to set down it that were acceptable!

Thanks! Based upon HIS decision alone I'm glad the UK didn't do anything stupid and further I wish that the US would not get ourselves involved with these snits either because they are going to go on forever! There are literally hundreds of depots all over the world and we should take a step back, now! Dangerous precedent has been set here.

Brings up thoughts of the AntiChrist.

Executive Order 12333

Abstract: Suspending the ban on assassinations—as established in Executive Order 12333—serves no practical purpose. The Executive Order is not an obstacle to effective prosecution of the War on Terrorism; in fact, its reach is very limited. Although common sense might suggest that “assassination” equates with the targeted killing of a specific individual, the term is in fact a legal term of art with a very narrow definition derived from the Law of War. As a result, Executive Order 12333 only prohibits a very narrow spectrum of attacks in wartime or against clear threats to national security. As the United States has not typically engaged such means to attack “leadership targets” for several decades, publicly rescinding the offer now would grant no more freedom to act and only would serve to undermine the United States’ public diplomacy abroad.

2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.

http://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/eo12333.pdf

In essence the Military can bomb the house/car/tent etc of a foreign leader but the intelligence agencies will not conduct a covert assassination.

This is from RR. I don't see it rescinded anywhere. Not sure about any international law as yet.

it's been a fairly painless operation

Except for the thousands and thousands of family members/innocents whose lives have been shattered and whose loved ones have been killed.

Ah, it's amazing to me how SOME innocents are okay, but when, what, over 10,000 are killed, then it becomes bad.

Bizarre. I have no clue why this even happened. I have no clue how this helped our Country.

Are we now in the role of attacking countries merely because their leaders don't treat their people well?

Saudi Arabia, here we come? Syria? NK? Zimbabwe?

Nah, they are all too politically important. I cannot believe how low we have sunk.

" it's been a fairly painless"

When you are broke and continue to wage wars and are just printing it or borrowing it from the likes of China I wouldnt exactly call that painless one day the pain in the ass will hit.

Well, it is war, people do die and that's tragic. Like I said, we should have never gone in to begin with. America has a serious problem with minding her own business.

But I do think it's going to go down as a win for the Obama admin. There have been no great blunders or mishaps. NATO, with US leadership, has enabled a nations people to overthrow a brutal dictator. That's one hell of a talking point going into election season.

Yeah, so, our president takes us to war to depose a brutal dictator and only ten thousand innocents are killed (no one really knows the number, may never know the number) and that's a win?

when chances are another brutal dictator/government will merely replace the one that was deposed?

Whatever.

Only if the dictator that takes over isnt worse then Ghaddafi and really is no talking point since Americans want jobs and really dont give a @!$%# what happens in Libya and if Obama thinks this will help him get relectwed he is really grasping for something to help him since the economy here sucks and he knows everything they have tried has been a failure.

Maybe it's just me, but no one was crying about collateral damage and civilians dying when the Iraq war was in full swing from 2003 - 2008. All everyone on the right wanted was to capture and kill Saddam Hussein.

Now you are worried about the Libyans who are trying to free themselves of a despotic tyrant with nominal help from the USA (and rid the world of Muammar Gaddafi - who really did attack the USA - remember Pan Am Flight 103 that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland)

And, as far as the economy goes, the republican's Iraq war was one of the most devastating, destructive events for our economy that is still wrecking havoc on our ability to correct the course of the nation.

So now everyone will admit that it is indeed a WAR? Finally.

Yep, civil war between dictator's followers and rebels backed by all the world's freedom loving countries.

Charlotte:

LOL, right, NOW it's a war, and one which OBAMA won, all by himself!

Obama the Soldier

Las Vegas:

Yeah, right. It was NATO, is that "all the world's freedom loving countries?" LOL, and it was only because Europe needed to get control of its oil!

But, we get it, Obama's wars, good, Bush wars, bad, EXCEPT when Obama takes over Bush wars, then GOOD!

LOL

when chances are another brutal dictator/government will merely replace the one that was deposed?

You have no way of knowing that. Is it a possibility? Sure. But it's also a possibility that a democracy is formed and a peaceful nation rises.

I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
- George Bush

MWeaver:

LOL, I got history on my side! Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

Ain't a democracy other than Israel in the ME, and there has never been one either!

Iraq ain't gonna be a democracy either, which is why I was against going that war. Still can't believe Bush did that, and still can't believe that because he did I actually lost a bet to Gillis, the ONLY one I have EVER lost! Damnit!

You need to brush up on your geography. Libya is not in the middle east, it's in Africa, about 200 miles off the coast of Europe.

And it obviously has a willing people, who choose to overthrow a 40 year dictatorship. It seems unlikely they will form another one, especially with NATO offering it's support.

!

Really? Well Wiki disagrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_East_countries_by_population

So does this site.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/countries.html

Seriously, if you are going to try a "gotcha" you gotta do better than that!

Wanna bet MWeaver?

Ain't been no democracy there, and ain't gonna be one neither!

What would you like to bet, give me some parameters?

Foreign supported interims, don't count!

Wanna bet what?

That Libya ends up becoming a true democracy.

And it obviously has a willing people, who choose to overthrow a 40 year dictatorship. It seems unlikely they will form another one, especially with NATO offering it's support.

You think the people will form a democracy, I say bull@!$%#.

Note, not INTERIM governments allowed as most of them are foreign controlled anyway.

Yeah, I'll take a wait and see attitude here. Too many countries have been offered a chance at democracy only to factionalize and fight amongst themselves-much of what is happening in Iraq right now is precisely the same thing.

The problem with freedom is that someone will step into the vacuum and it's a roll of the dice to see if that person si about the greter good or about himself (think Chavez in Venzuela).

Really? Well Wiki disagrees.

You can have Wikki, I'll stick with the CIA. Lybia and Middle East

And bet? Good lord.

1) Why would you bet against it, it almost seems like your pulling for them to fail. Surely you don't hate Obama that much.

2) It could take years, hell, they still haven't completely thrown out the current dictator.

3) No matter which direction the rebels take the country in, it doesn't change the fact that the US led NATO campaign will be widely seen as a great success.

MWeave:

Huh, this has nothing to do with Obama, except to the extent he may have been naive enough to believe a democracy would actually result from this, and I don't believe that, or at least his aides were not.

Qaddafi will be gone in a week, a permanent gummint won't take long methinks.

No matter which direction the rebels take the country in, it doesn't change the fact that the US led NATO campaign will be widely seen as a great success.

So was our invasion in Iraq, so your point is that NATO and the US has wonderful air power? Agreed.

Huh, this has nothing to do with Obama

He's the commander and cheif of the primary force responsible for the Libyan mission. I'd say it's success or failure definitely has to do with him.

The goal was not to establish a Democracy, the goal was support an internal uprising. And it has been very successful, obviously. And of course it will take a while to form a government, they have to draw a Constitution, hold elections, etc etc.

Iraq and Libya are in no way comparable. For starters, one's in the Middle East one is in Africa ;-) But also, like I said, this has been support for an internal uprising. Iraq was just a flat out invasion.

Let's all cross our fingers and hope the rebel forces puts the power in the people's hands and some form of fair, equally representative government is founded.

democracy other than Israel in the ME, and there has never been one either

This is really simply false. Occupying my country Palestine you can't call israel democratic and never was never will.

Good for Libya fighiting for their rights and equality.. Next Arabs need to fight against Rogue jewish criminal nothing nation.

MWeaver:

Hell, looks like I would have already won the bet!

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/22/libyan-draft-constitution-sharia-is-principal-source-of-legislation/

LOL Did you read that link? Or did you just see the word "sharia" and get all excited?

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

and then from the document itself:

Based on the legitimacy of this Revolution, and in response to the desire of the Libyan people and their hopes to achieve democracy, establish the political multitude and the estate of institution, to create a society wherein all of us can live in stability, tranquility and justice; a society that can raise by science, culture, welfare and health, and that can bring up the new generations according to the Islamic spirit and love of home.

it continues...

Libya is a independent Democratic State wherein the people are the source of authorities.

Boy, that's gotta sting. Thanks for the link.

I have always wondered why Obama didn't support the people's uprising in Iran? was he skerrt?

Or Syria? Why isn't Nato trying to take out Assad?

There is a potent question wmolaw. We know Syria has harbored terrorists for decades yet we do nothing. Why do we treat them with kid gloves?

The other countries just don't have the stomach for it. Never have.

You just don't give NATO any credit at all eh Greg?

The fact is that our president helped a rebel faction overthrow a government, now the table is set for similar actions anywhere there is a rebellion.

What does Ronald Reagan have to do with this? Or Theodore Roosevelt, for that matter?

AdipicAcid,

Why on earth would you bring up that historical stuff? American Adventurism is our mainstay....

besides TR failed...the mafia lost Cuba to Castro.....(Ike didn't gamble)

AdipicAcid

The fact is that our president helped a rebel faction overthrow a government, now the table is set for similar actions anywhere there is a rebellion.

What does Ronald Reagan have to do with this? Or Theodore Roosevelt, for that matter?

What does Ronald Reagan have to do with this? Or Theodore Roosevelt, for that matter?

Well, aside from the fact that I did not say what you quoted, I am going to assume there is supposed to be a meaning in there somewhere, even though it escapes me.

"a just war is far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace"- T. Roosevelt

Ever wonder how we came to "own" that trench across the isthmus?

Eisenhower Cites "Domino Theory" Regarding Southeast Asia: Responding to the defeat of the French by the Vietminh at Dienbienphu, President Eisenhower outlines the Domino Theory: "You have a row of dominoes set up. You knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly."

Guatemala,Honduras,Chile,Venezuela pick a south American country and R.R. had the CIA doing something to prop up dictators who "Opposed" the commies.. He Armed Saddam after making deals with Iran. What were we doing in Grenada?

American Presidents have muddied the water with "support" and "aid" for over 100 years...what makes you think this is any kind of precedence?

Open your eyes...read some history...this is not new

Jim, I am pointing out your historical ignorance. You are acting as if Obama has crossed some line that none of his predecessors have. Reagan supported a revolution in Nicaragua, and TR supported one in that country not for any idealistic purpose, but to guarantee the secession of Panama so he could build a canal that would enrich the United States. The "table has been set" for over half a century and you are just noticing, because you don't like Obama.

Hell, if you throw in Polk's manipulation of the Texans, the table has been set for over a century, in fact. Quit pretending this is new or unique.

lol!!!

Borncorn

What if the result is not a democracy but another dictator with a result like we achieved when we removed the Shah and helped get the "new and improved: Iranian regime in power

How about if it works out like that?

Will it still be a win for Obama?

Robert:

Oh, don't burst his bubble.

Born:

Yeah, under Obama's watch more of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in two years than in 7 under GW and what do we have to show for that?

Yeah, under Obama's watch more of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in two years than in 7 under GW and what do we have to show for that?

You really want to compare the deaths of our servicemen under Bush to that under Obama? Be careful what you ask for.

How about if it works out like that?

And, what if it doesn't?

Borncorn:

Sure, as long as the subject is Afghanistan!

Are you going to dispute the fact I noted? Or do you merely wish to deflect?

Do you wish to compare the total deaths under Bush to Obama? Why do you use only one Country. Don't the kids in Iraq count to you?. Or, is is just pathetic rightwing spin again.

Born:

Leftists vs. Righties/dictators.

Sorry.

As to Afghanistan, that is the "good" war according to Obama, how's that working out?

Jbird:

Hmmmm, why were the dems allowed to use that dog whistle so frequently? I was here then, all you heard was how Bush was ignoring the Country because he was at his ranch, Camp David, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now, vacations are good, eh? Sigh, the bias is everywhere.

Under Obama, we have brought the Taliban into a dysfunctional state

Oh, please. That was accomplished under Bush. Sorry, vis a vis the Taliban all Obama has done is targeted assassinations and taken actions which have resulted in lots of our guys getting killed, for no good reason.

and contacts were developed there to allow us to apprehend Bin Laden with his leadership

LOL, that's funny as hell. Obama got bin laden under his watch, IN PAKISTAN! Agreed, and good for him.

And such was able to be accomplished, according to Obama's own Sec Def, by waterboarding, which Obama tried to prevent. A bit of a bizarre twist, eh?

Oh, please. That was accomplished under Bush.

Sorry, you'll have to wait for a moreconcrete response til I finish laughing my ass off. That was a doozy-It's gonna be a while! However, anyone knows that one of the reasons we had to ramp up this to prepare for the draw down, is because Bush got distracted by Iraq, an therefore did slipshod work in in afghanistan. BTW, just like a Righty(and my wife)-Lose a debate, change the subject. This had been about Tripoli...

but in the meantime, footage of Graham and McCain have surfaced, showing them shaking hands with the Libyan dictator in '09!

jbird:

DNC talking points do not facts make. The Taliban was merely a support mechanism for Al Queda, the goal was to disrupt the support mechanism, which Bush was completely and absolutely successful at.

Bush KNEW (because he's three times smarter than Obama) that Afghanistan could NEVER be conquered, so he didn't try! He didn't get "distracted" by Iraq to the detriment of Afghanistan, he did in that Country what he wanted.

And then Obama, just out of idiocy, asserted that AFghanistan was the "good" war, though why I have no idea. Hell, Afghanistan was just an attack and disrupt event. But, that's what Obama ran on, and so he had to follow through.

So, how's Obama doing in Afghanistan? LOL, he ramped it way up, accomplished nothing except a lot of American deaths, and innocent deaths and the targeted assassinations of some Taliban, and now will be running with his tail between his legs.

Way to go Obama!

but in the meantime, footage of Graham and McCain have surfaced, showing them shaking hands with the Libyan dictator in '09!

LOL, they aren't the president. Hell, there are pictures showing Obama as president seemingly bending low enough to fellate the rules of Saudia Arabia!

Libya was a ludicrous act, pushed by Hillary. Gee, we take down another dictator so that another islamist government that hates the US and the west can be installed ! Way to go!

The only thing that did was guarantee, for awhile, the flow of oil to Europe. Is that what NATO is now used for? If so, time we got the hell out!

Over a billion and counting that little, worthless event is costing!

Got that 100% right, the lefties are the biggest hypocrites going!

Well, not all of them, some are being honest, but they sure as hell ain't posting here on this Board!

I believe it refers to the "Obama Doctrine"

Think it through. As noted by Sesostrus this is the best course. We are not "occupiers" and with some luck the massively fractured tribal structures that make up this country will follow their own proposed constitution.

Syria will work out as soon as the EU decides to embargo the oil. Assad cannot function purely off Iran. With any luck this will push a bigger rift into Iran and help the green party continue to erode the theocracy.

Sub:

You mean the one that makes Sharia the law of the land!

LOL, way to go Obama! ANOTHER muslim country following Sharia! Success!

You guys are really something.

wmolaw,

If Bush was so smart why did he go into Iraq?

I agree we have supremely @!$%#ed up in Afghanistan. But we destabilized Pakistan...now we have to camp close to the 200 plus nucs they are sitting on...

As to Sharia Law...that's their issue. Keep your fear of it here.Ya never can tell when us Obama supporters will want to outlaw all secular law.. Eventually antarctic ice melt will solve the problem. Most of the occupied areas of north Africa and the middle east are less than 100 ft above sea level.

There should be real concern that these people will not be able to work together since they have only been held together so far by the common hate of the dictator. While there should be concern that a theocracy will form we can hope that by our not being the occupiers will have less focus for that movement.

Sub:

Ah, I don't have a "fear" Sharia law,, do you love it? I am merely pointing out that Sharia law and true democracy are mutually impossible.

As to Bush and Iraq, I have no flipping clue. Frankly, I didn't think he would despite the rhetoric. To this day it is the ONLY bet I have lost vis a vis Jack Gillis, and it rankles.

We have seen what "hope" gets you, a stint in a stinking prison. There is not possibility that Libya will end up as a democracy.

Well, let me say, it won't end up as a real democracy. Remember, Saddam said he had a democracy, so does Iran, did you believe him then? Believe Iran now?

wmolaw,

Since I don't live in a country under theocratic rule I have no love nor fear of Sharia Law.

I spent many a long hour off Bandar Taheri waiting for another democrat to launch WW III. IMO we made some incredibly stupid moves back then. It isn't much better now.

Hope is about all we can use today. The hope is that with technology use there will be less ignorance and with less ignorance eventually comes less reliance on shaman interpretation of physics.

Either climate change and or water/food shortages will create a new reason to kill.

Sub:

Either climate change and or water/food shortages will create a new reason to kill.

True, almost all wars, (all?) have been, in some way or another, about natural resources.

Angelo:

Oh that is such crap, sorry, but that is total crap.

WE went into Libya for the UK and its oil needs. To say otherwise is just ludicrous. This "freedom" thing is a damned joke, read up on what is happening, eh? Their "constitution" holds Sharia as the Supreme law of the land, SOME democracy!

Unbelievable that folks just refuse to look at facts, they allow their support for Obama to completely blind them to reality! Same goes for Egypt, by the way.

It's not an arab spring, not if you believe in democracy, it's an arab winter.

what say you now? Have we taken enough oil yet? Or is that what all people of your ilk say whenever there is a conflict in a region that has oil? How is it that we go in and extract all this oil without anybody being any wiser to our plan? Conspiracy theorist are the worst, in that they just spew stupid @!$%# up against the wall in hopes that some of it sticks. When most of the garbage you spew doesn't, you don't explain or apologize for being wrong, you just go on to the next stupid conspiracy. Get a life and some facts! One more thing, WE ALREADY BUY OIL FROM LIBYA.

they sure are, day late and a dollar short...lol

Close enough to take credit, but far enough to run from it if it went south?

Exactly Spike.