Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So now after 9 days Obama is addressing the American people on his illegal war for oil. So far he has said bla, bla, bla.

Really dude? Come on.

Look, as everyone on here knows, I'm no fan of Obama (seems like a cool guy, but I don't care for his politics at all), but I think we're absolutely doing the right thing here, and I think for the most part we're approaching it the right way.

I actually liked his speech tonight better than any I've heard him give since being elected.

We had to help with some kind of intervention in Lybia, we took the lead to get the no-fly established, now we're backing off and handing it over to NATO on Wednesday and will continue to support, but not lead the op, and no ground troops will be involved. A measured, sound decision IMO.

My only issue is we have no stated end-game, but then again this whole thing is only 4 weeks old, so stay tuned.

[firstdown]

Now I know why we went to war. Obam said that Gadhafi bombed Masque.

[firstdown]

So why Lybia and not the other places around the world? Only real answer is oil. Now we are talking about arming the rebals and we don't even really know who they are.

[firstdown]

Well it seem we are learing who these rebals are. AL-QAEDA and think Obama is thinking about arming them.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well it seem we are learing who these rebals are. AL-QAEDA and think Obama is thinking about arming them.

Where'd you hear that from? No government official has confirmed that. Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice, Joint Chiefs - none of them, to my knowledge, have floated the idea that the rebels are in cahoots with al-Qaeda. And while it's reasonable to believe that elements of al-Qaeda are in the mix, I don't think this movement in Libya was engineered or led by them. Since when have al-Qaeda used protesting as a means to get their point across and greated an American pilot with open arms? And with my very limited knowledge of the situation, I'm sure they aren't just sittng around waiting for America to give them weapons, they've been very capable of acquiring them in the past.

The truth is these organic uprisings are stealing al-Qaeda's thunder and sending a strong message that regimes can be overthrown through other means besides violence and terrorism.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Where'd you hear that from? No government official has confirmed that. Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice, Joint Chiefs - none of them, to my knowledge, have floated the idea that the rebels are in cahoots with al-Qaeda. And while it's reasonable to believe that elements of al-Qaeda are in the mix, I don't think this movement in Libya was engineered or led by them. Since when have al-Qaeda used protesting as a means to get their point across and greated an American pilot with open arms? And with my very limited knowledge of the situation, I'm sure they aren't just sittng around waiting for America to give them weapons, they've been very capable of acquiring them in the past.

The truth is these organic uprisings are stealing al-Qaeda's thunder and sending a strong message that regimes can be overthrown through other means besides violence and terrorism.

Libyan opposition includes a small number of al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

And can anyone explain why the US would confirm or leak that we did have CIA agents in Libya? Would that not put them in more danger?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Libyan opposition includes a small number of al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

And can anyone explain why the US would confirm or leak that we did have CIA agents in Libya? Would that not put them in more danger?

agree, that about as idoitic as a Vice President authorizing a leak of a CIA agent. Very stoopid, just doesnt make sense

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well it seem we are learing who these rebals are. AL-QAEDA and think Obama is thinking about arming them.

Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[15] although this view has been disputed.[16][17][18][19]
Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[20] Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".
first, what do you think about this?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[15] although this view has been disputed.[16][17][18][19]
Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[20] Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".
first, what do you think about this?

I really don't know enough about these to have an opinion. What does it have to do with whats going on today? What I do know is that we are at war with Al Qaeda and why the f*ck would we even think of providing them arms. Now we hear that the CIA is on the ground and this has been leaked to the press probably increasing their risk. So much for the no boots on the ground lie,

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[15] although this view has been disputed.[16][17][18][19]
Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[20] Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".
first, what do you think about this?

Reagan was out to destroy the USSR, my enemy's enemy is my friend, is simply what was at play there. Reagan's support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan brought tremendous "bang for the buck" in terms of hurting the USSR financially and militarily, with minimal risk to US military personnel (not including covert ops folks of course).

I'm not sure what the correlation with Reagan's actions vs. Obama's actions is. Outside of taking out Gaddafi, which as I mentioned before could be fairly easily accomplished with an "off-course" cruise missle or a covert op assist to the rebels, what is our goal here? What are we accomplishing in the sense of a Mid East or global strategy? I think arming the rebels sends a very bad message and is the wrong thing to do. Again as I mentioned before, we need to get to the background of this quickly and let NATO, the Arab League, the French or Brits take point on this one.

If this was Iran and we're talking about arming rebels against that regime, maybe there's an end-game that benefits US interests a great deal and it's worth the risk (but I certainly don't do it publicly). In Libya, I don't see it.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Reagan was out to destroy the USSR, my enemy's enemy is my friend, is simply what was at play there. Reagan's support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan brought tremendous "bang for the buck" in terms of hurting the USSR financially and militarily, with minimal risk to US military personnel (not including covert ops folks of course).

I'm not sure what the correlation with Reagan's actions vs. Obama's actions is. Outside of taking out Gaddafi, which as I mentioned before could be fairly easily accomplished with an "off-course" cruise missle or a covert op assist to the rebels, what is our goal here? What are we accomplishing in the sense of a Mid East or global strategy? I think arming the rebels sends a very bad message and is the wrong thing to do. Again as I mentioned before, we need to get to the background of this quickly and let NATO, the Arab League, the French or Brits take point on this one.

If this was Iran and we're talking about arming rebels against that regime, maybe there's an end-game that benefits US interests a great deal and it's worth the risk (but I certainly don't do it publicly). In Libya, I don't see it.

Looks like we are taking more of a back seat role. I like.

In addition to pulling combat aircraft out of Libya mission, Navy missiles also put on standby | StarTribune.com

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Looks like we are taking more of a back seat role. I like.

In addition to pulling combat aircraft out of Libya mission, Navy missiles also put on standby | StarTribune.com

Agree.

[BuckSkin]

It may of just been an oversight, put you omitted the preceding wiki-paragraph.
The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

[BuckSkin]

There was no doubt in my mind that covert ops were going on behind the scenes long before any nation flew the first sortie. It's simply not smart, regardless of your idealogical opinion, to engage your opponent without reliable intelligence on the ground. There are likely tarristsis (GWB's word not mine)fighting with the Libyian resistance, but after the past few years you must realize they also wear the same uniform I do.

[12thMan]

I don't think leaking the CIA being on the ground is a bad thing. I assume it's more of message and warning to Ghadaffy's inner circle more than a direct threat to him.

We have to take this guy out one way or another.