The real reasons we’re bombing Libya [Reader Post]


Libya Pictures, Images and Photos

The reasons for Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya has never been really clear- or honest. The most commonly offered explanation given for bombing Libya has been the prevention of a humanitarian disaster. Sunday morning, Obama’s Abbott and Costello foreign policy team said that Libya was a direct threat to US national interest and at the same time that it was not. Of course, that does not explain why we interfere in Libya but not in other regions in which human rights are being oppressed- like North Korea, Iran or China.

Or Syria.

In 2010 Barack Obama renewed sanctions on Syria, calling Syria an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” At that time Obama had little good to say about Syria.

But he said that Syria’s “continuing support for terrorist organisations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programmes, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States”.

In the wake of those comments, Hillary Clinton declared that the US would not intervene in Syria even though more than 60 “protesters” were killed in a week of violence. In her statement excluding Syria from intervention Clinton went so far as to call Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad a “reformer.”

So why are we in Libya but not Syria?

First, let’s have a look at the countries in Sarkozy’s coalition (This really is Sarkozy’s coalition. Obama was very late to the game but fully expect Obama to take credit for anything that comes out well).

United States
United Kingdom
United Arab Emirate

Now let’s look at a diagram. It is a diagram of where Libyan oil goes.


You might notice that the major consumers of Libyan oil are Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain.

Libya has the greatest oil reserves in Africa.

As of 2008 the US was receiving over 100,000 barrels of oil per day from Libya.

Several US oil companies have interests in Libya and so does Halliburton.

Note: A few weeks before Obama began bombing Libya, the US State Department allowed Moammar Gaddafi’s son to visit the US, spending a few weeks in the US, touring ports and military facilities.

Let’s look at another diagram. This one depicts the destinations of Libyan refugees.


Refugees from Libya are flooding into the neighboring countries (Primarily Egypt and Tunisia) and Italy. More ominously, it is thought that between 750,000 and 2 million Libyans could flood into Europe.

He (Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini) also warned of the potential danger of a power vacuum leading to the formation of an Islamic state in the east of the country. Mr Frattini predicted that the collapse of the regime would lead to the “self proclamation of the so-called Islamic emirate of Benghazi”.

Some of us believe that this is already a fait accompli even if the country does not split.

These are the real reasons we are bombing Libya- the flow of oil and the Muslim exodus. One could understand coming to the aid of Italy and France and prevent a huge Muslim flood into Europe. One could understand our allies seeking to maintain the flow of oil. But that’s not what the President stipulated as the reasons for our involvement and it once again shows why you’re an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

Right now we are not protecting “civilians.” We are engaged as the air cover for the rebel war against Gaddafi. The goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. Do not for one moment think it is anything else. And it could all end very badly.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Have you realized Obaby just says things and hopes no one remembers tomorrow what he said today.

Last week I posed the opinion that Obama has placed our National Security at risk with his half-baked attack on Gadaffi’s forces.
IT IS CLEAR that either the illustrious Colonel goes, or America is left with a wide open ass for good spectacular terror attack.
It’s not like The Colonel hadn’t “Been there and done that before.”
We Got Saddam, who was on the run and in hiding, had an entire Nation and a Trillion dollars at his disposal.
OBL had/has no such Nation and no such dollars.
“The Colonel” has both of them beat right now.

I respectively request this video to be posted on F.A., as it basically lays out that case as well as three other distinctive, um, “problems” with what Obama has done and how he did it.
(It gets REAL interesting around the 2:05 minute mark).

Courtesy embed by Mata

What did Obama SAY was why?

Our interests and values are at stake.
$33 billion has been frozen as a sanction.
(Sounds like he would have been all for invading Iraq!)
Oh, the world’s conscience might have been ”stained!”
Still looking for why Obama said: Our interests and values are at stake.
Obama pledged to America our role would be limited.
So…..why did he do it?
Wed NATO takes over.
Now we are going to support the Libyan people with food and welfare!
We will use the $33 billion for that.

Obama wants a Libya that belongs to its people (whoever the heck THEY are!)
Obama wants Libya to have a new government.
Balancing the need for action with how many other places could use help is no excuse to never act!
(I wonder if Obama knows that his ”rebels” are murdering ever black they find?)
Obama refused to wait to see slaughter and mass graves.
Obama said it would have been too expensive for America not to have acted.
(Sounds like Obama has designs on a big cut of that $33 billion, huh?)
The Libyan rebels asked us to do all this!
So, we did!
Obama: We will assist the opposition.
(Uh, Obama? Who do you think the opposition are?)
Our safety is NOT the same as our values or interests.
Things that are not America’s problems are still important to us.
We should act.

We should act COLLECTIVELY.

Yup, definitely sounds like that $33 billion is Obama’s main motivation.
I wonder how he will squander it?

PS: I should not have chosen ”change” as my drinking word with my dirty vodka martini!

NAN G. He did it for the 33 billion.I love it.How dry are those martinis you’re drinking?
Why should it suprise anyone that France and Italy are in for their economic interests. US at 3% not so much.Primary reason for our involvement was as stated.Humanitarian. Pictures start coming in of slaughtered civilians in Benghazi and US planes still on the ground Obama is toast.

I’m with Repubs. Mac,Lidsay G,,Rudy and Sarah who say finish the job and take out Gadhafi. They say they are not concerned about make up of rebel force and Lindsay says it’s ridiculous to bring up costs considering what Iraq cost.
Many possibilities on dismissing the Col.For the next 60 days I’ll leave that up to allied forces and the good people of Libya.

Great information, Flopping Aces,
Committing our military to Libya is another in a long line of horribly wrong decisions by the Obama Administration. There is no good end to this exercise. Let the Europeans save their own oil supply. If the rebels win, who thinks for a moment they will be better to deal with regarding the oil? If Kadaffy wins, how obstinate is he going to be? Obama has invited our country into a lose-lose dead end alley. When the bad ending comes, the US will somehow end up as the ones who get the blame.
We the people need to make sure Obama is held accountable for getting us into this mess. We might not recover from what he has cost us the first two years of his presidency. It appears that he will out do himself in bringing us grief in his next two years as he figures out new ways to mess up this country.

Supposedly, millions are being kept on a starvation diet in N. Korea by a mad man. Millions have been killed in the Congo, Darfur, and Somalia and we have been content to watch the bloodshed continue for years.

A few weeks ago, our president gave the son of Gadaffi four hundred thousand dollars, supposedly for his charity, but now, Gadaffi is no good. How much effort can a leader or dictator use to put down a civil war or a war by the Muslim Brotherhood or al Qaeda. Fight too hard and you are a rogue and the forces of the civilized world will be sending missiles into your country.

Now if a cruel and bloodthirsty regime deposes Gadaffi, will we go in there to kick ass once again or will the new dictators realize their vicarious position and not disrupt the flow of oil. The slaughter of innocents is much more palatable if it takes place where there is not immense wealth; of that, we can safely agree.

The lending of fire power from NATO and the US to help those who have sworn to kill us must be the big joke in those humorless camps of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood while they dream of conquest in the richest oil state in North Africa or all of Africa.

Will we provide them with the wealth to launch a modern and full blown Jihad attack on the US?

Just how much is Obama really trying to accomplish with coming to the aid of our enemy in Libya?

The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

And I cannot help but harken back to Obama’s position that genocide was not good enough a reason to stay in Iraq.

Obama said, the USA is turning over the leadership role in Libya to NATO on Weds.
This morning we learn that NATO is saying, ”Not So Fast, Obama!”
NATO reportedly delaying planned takeover of military command in Libya

Remember Iman al-Obeidi?
She was the woman who burst into the Tripoli hotel to tell Western reporters about her arrest, torture and rape at the hands of Gaddafi forces?

Well, contrary to Gaddafi’s report that she’s been freed and her allegations taken seriously, her family now tells the press that she is STILL in custody AND being charged herself.

Also a Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, says the men accused by Iman al-Obeidi have filed a case against her, calling her accusations a “grave offense.”

In Islam a woman’s testimony is worth 1/4 of a man’s.
Hence a ”rape victim” needs FOUR male eyewitnesses* or it is her word against any men who say she’s lying.
Well, all of the men she could ID are saying she is lying.
And she’s all alone as regards other eyewitnesses.

Bukhari (5:59:462) – The background for the Qur’anic requirement of four witnesses to adultery. Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was accused of cheating [on her polygamous husband]. Three witnesses corroborated the event, but Muhammad did not want to believe it, and so established the arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required.
(24:13) – “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.”


Great point, DrJohn.
AP (of all places!) has a fact Check of Obama’s speech and finds it sorely wanting.
Oh, and, AP….OUCH!

Dr John Putting aside BHO for a moment,as difficult as that may be with your syndrome and all, are you PERSONALLY thumbs up or down on Gadhafi remaining in power?

NanG I’m intererested in your response to those here who question the validity of the Benghazi lady who’s asserting rape and brutality charges against Gadhafi’s henchmen? Is she lying? Is she a rebel plant whose sole purpose is to sully the good Col.’s reputation?

@rich wheeler:

NanG I’m intererested in your response to those here who question the validity of the Benghazi lady who’s asserting rape and brutality charges against Gadhafi’s henchmen? Is she lying? Is she a rebel plant whose sole purpose is to sully the good Col.’s reputation?

Question away, folks.
One thing about Islamic ”justice” is that there are no DNA tests, no evidence taken and a female’s word is discounted as testimony.
We cannot force our system of justice on Libyans.
So, we can never know ”the truth.”
In Islam there is NO TRUTH.
There is only Sharia.
She accused some men and they all denied her charges, counter charging her as a liar.
Dissing a Muslim male (slander) is a close relative to insulting Islam itself, and that carries a death penalty.
In Islam slander does not imply untruth, simply an insult to the man.

A woman who has sex outside of marriage is an adultress, and in Islam, that, too, is a death penalty.

Now, oddly, if she is pregnant, she will be allowed to live long enough to give birth and then ween the baby.
Then she will be put to death.

Her pregnancy is not proof of rape.
Her pregnancy serves as ”proof” of her adultery.
What a system!

NanG. Thank you.
Exit question Might her wounds be self inflicted,or suffered at the hands of those al-Qaeda led rebel forces?

@rich wheeler:

You asked Dr.J:

Dr John Putting aside BHO for a moment,as difficult as that may be with your syndrome and all, are you PERSONALLY thumbs up or down on Gadhafi remaining in power?

Regardless of how he answers that question, his points bringing up the hypocrisies of Obama are fair. When Obama states one thing about the Iraq war, which from past sources is easily done, yet goes on to disregard those comments he made on his stances and do the same as Bush did in Iraq, he is being disingenuous, to himself, his supporters, and the country. Is that not fair to point out? Or has your admiration and worship of all things Obama blinded you to anything negative said about him?

An old Greek proverb states, “A man is known by the company he keeps.” If you agree that Obama is disingenous, or hypocritical, yet still support him, does that mean you are disingenuous or hypocritical as well?

Dr.J. says ” I think we’re going to end up worse than when we started.”How so?
About oil. Yes
Muslim influx into Europe.For some
Removal of Gadhafi.Bonus for most
Humanitarian. Prevention of Gadhafi’s intent to bomb the city of Benghazi.Yes
Better off: U.S.,Libyans,European allies We’ll see

John G. I would be proud to keep the company of Barack Hussein Obama. No man is perfect,and we all make mistakes. As you know I have not always agreed with him but on balance I think he’s doing a very good job.As mentioned I can’t wait till the Repub. contest begins in Iowa.Great fun.

Exit question Why so hard to give an up or down on the Gadhafi. Can I assume you don’t care?

@rich wheeler:
Rich, will we ever know?
Would Gaddafi’s men have knowingly let a ”rebel” go, male OR female?

Here’s tha game stopper to that theory, however:
Gaddafi’s own people admitted there was enough credence to her story as to warrant investigating and even arresting four men.
Only when those men kept their story straight did she get accused of slandering them.
They couldn’t simply deny her story, too much evidence against them.
But she’ll be dead and we’ll never get to the bottom of it.
Sharia is not like our legal system at all.

@rich wheeler:

I would be proud to keep the company of Barack Hussein Obama.

You have now admitted to your adoration of a noted hypocrite and liar. It isn’t about people being perfect or not. I stand by my principles no matter what. Obama does not. I guess you do not either.

Exit question Why so hard to give an up or down on the Gadhafi. Can I assume you don’t care?

I don’t believe it’s hard to give an up or down vote on Ghaddafi. I, myself, believe he should go, but not be forced out by us. Dr.J hasn’t stated anywhere that he likes the guy, yet you want to try and pin him down as some kind of Ghaddafi sympathizer. Why that is I neither know, nor care about. You just cannot admit that Obama is a liar and a hypocrite for committing our military to action in Libya. You’d rather make this about Dr.J, than Obama’s failings, because you don’t want to admit to them.

John G. You have a penchant to exaggerate. I have adoration for no man and only one woman.If you saw my beautiful wife you’d understand why. I have failings,our President has failings.John Galt? You stand by your principles. OOH RAH

@johngalt, hypocrisy knows no partisan divide. This issue on Libya has created chasms between lib/progs and conservatives alike. But you also have to note that April 15th will be the 25th anniversary of Reagan’s attack on Libya.

President Reagan made a TV address to the American people two hours after the attack.

In it he said : “When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I’m in this office.”

He argued that America was exercising its right to self defence as defined by Article 51 of the UN charter.

Needless to say, using the deaths of American citizens around the world at the hand of terrorists or those sponsored by terrorist states is simply impossible. The US would be waging war far beyond it’s military capabilities.

But to show you how contentious this issue is, and how we have changed over time, few conservatives criticized Reagan in those years. And one might note that prominent conservatives like Rush and Mark Levin – both Reagan supporters and the latter a former Reagan employee – are opposed to this action in Libya. This places them on the opposite side of Palin and McCain.

Watch CNN and you find the same arguments and discussions among the liberals. This is truly one issue that cannot be defined as either conservative or liberal. But there is no lack of hypocrisy for either side.

@Nan G, my jury is still out on O’beidy. As I said, we know little about her own involvement in rebel activities. We do know she is a lawyer and student, attending university for continued education. We also know that the student protestors were the first to be hauled off and arrested. Do we know how prevalent jihad/MB/AQ recruitment is on campuses in Libya? It is their most fertile grounds.

Like I said, I don’t know her story, but I’m not so quick to buy into all this as being so coincidental. The media war is just as important to the rebels as the no fly zone is, fighting their civil war for them. Predictably, this morning CNN has decided that O’beidy is “the face of the Libyan revolution”. Did I not say that was likely the quest? Mission accomplished.

As far as O’beidy. What I have heard via news reports is that the family is standing by her, and consider her brave and honorable (so much for your honor killing theory…). As far as why government forces would let her go? How about so they could follow her to rebel friends and leaders? After her detainment, she went directly to the press…. a woman that thinks more like a rebel and a lawyer than a victim.

The government says she’s released. The family says they don’t know where she is. If they did, why would anyone assume they’d tell anyone? She is more valuable as “the face of the Libyan rebellion” if we do not know she’s harbored safely with friends, relatives and other rebels, yes? Then again, she could be held by the Libyan government… but that’s rather a catch 22 since they’d have to produce her at some time for trial and punishment, yes?

I’d say time is going to tell us what’s the story behind the story. Me? Still the skeptic. The rebel movement is clever and resourceful. I do not discount the possibility this is all planned. And until we know for sure… and as you point out, we may never know the truth… I’ll stay in the camp that doesn’t choose to use her to paint a happy face on rebels, who’s intent is most likely quite sinister.

And to think, this is the same Mata H. who is so upset when anyone ”runs ahead” of what her TEPCO peeps dribble out!
Well, LOL!
Look I said we would probably never get to the bottom of her story.
Islamic law has no such goal.
Heck, it doesn’t even admit DNA in rape cases!

Interesting analogy, Nan G… especially that you continually try to tie me to TEPCO. Gues this is a trick you pick up from lib/progs, who do not know how to say the name “Cheney” without Halliburton in the same sentence? LOL

But I’ll tell you what. If I’m going to be accused of getting ahead of the news.. your forte, not mine… I’d rather be linked with TEPCO than with the Libya rebels, as you have chosen to do by elevating O’beidy without knowing much about her.

And we will know “the truth” if she is being held… at least we will know if the truth is they are holding her, or she is free. Because they cannot do the trial and punishment without producing her, can they? That is regardless of whether the trial is fair or not.

Speaking of what we “know” of O’beidy.

As I mentioned, she is a lawyer and attending university in Tripoli for higher degree, as confirmed by her parents. You will note they are also “proud”… therefore I don’t see an honor killing in her future, contrary to Nan G’s infidel Shariah perspectives here.

The family of al-Obeidy said she is a lawyer — and not a prostitute or mentally ill as Libyan government officials initially said after the incident. The government has since changed its story, saying she is sane and pursuing a criminal case.

Al-Obeidy’s father told Al-Jazeera that his daughter “has her full mental capabilities and she is a graduate of law school and a lawyer and she is pursuing higher education in Tripoli. And she was kidnapped by Gadhafi’s tyrannical forces.”

“I am not ashamed of my daughter,” al-Obeidy’s mother, who spoke from an undisclosed location in Libya, told the network. “I am proud of her because she has broken the barrier. She broke the barrier that no man can break. And those dogs there with him, Moammar, (are) the criminals!”

We also know that early on in this rebellion – March 2nd – 540 students from various area universities were abducted.

Forces loyal to Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi have reportedly abducted 540 university students along with a number of other Libyan citizens.

The university students were kidnapped from their dormitories in the faculty of aerospace in Misrata, while a number of other Libyan citizens were kidnapped from the city of al-Zawiya, “informed sources” told Iran’s Arabic-language news channel Al-Alam.

A number of anti-government protesters in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, have also been abducted by pro-Gaddafi forces.

Might a lawyer/student have any involvement in rebel activities? Or is this too far fetched to consider before throwing talking points behind O’beidy as the ultimate “face of Libya” victim?

Or does the other possibility exist that she is, indeed, part of the rebellion and her appearance in the hotel of journalists was a snappy media event to boost rebel support in a world where it was waning?

I think I’ll wait until we know.

You know Mata, PressTV is an IRANIAN news outlet.
An official Iranian government ”news” outlet, like Pravda of the old Soviet Union.
Whenever PressTV is one’s ONLY source the 24-hour rule should be applied.

And your other quote from CNN is one I used a day or so ago.

Is it OK if it is over 24 hours old?
Does that make it better?
Less ”Chicken Little?”

What’s so wrong about linking to something current?
Sure, it might later be updated, even retracted, but I don’t get where it is somehow wrong to note it.

And, if I link to something that turns out to be wrong I am the first one to admit it.
One day I accidentally named the wrong little city as having so many problems with huge salaries for mayor and council….Bell, commerce, whatever.
But when I realized it I came in and added a post correcting my error.

PS, there’s a rumor that

a TEPCO chief in Japan has committed suicide or has fled the country. One Japanese source for this rumor is InterPressNews at this link. Another rumor source can be found here. Chatter is circulating that the chief has not been seen in three weeks and may have committed suicide or fled the country due to recent pressures on Japan.

Speculation is also circulating that TEPCO may become nationalized. One write-up on this rumor may be found here.

This article may include mentions of rumors, chatter, or unconfirmed information.

Read more:

That site may require a registration.

You’re mixing up our disagreements, Nan G. The “chicken little” is over hyped and advanced reports over “maybes” and “mights” on the nuke power plant. O’beidy is not “chicken little”. It’s being duped by those who find it an advantage to portray the rebel movement as “pro democracy”.

At best, O’beidy can be portrayed as one more woman who was abused by scumbag soldiers… not a political thing, but a despicable act by bad apples in an equally ugly regime.

At worst, she can be portrayed as a rebel actress in a stage play, laying the groundwork for propaganda to prop up military efforts to fight a civil war for the Libyans.

Generally in the middle is the truth. My problem with your portrayal of O’beidy, since you were the one to bring this up as indicative of the heinous Gaddafi government, was that you didn’t consider either option at all. You simply took it at face value she had no vested interest in politics here. Or that CNN wouldn’t seize on it to do exactly as predicted… portray her as the “face of Libya” and use her as a propaganda tool to advance the rebellion as a quest for democracy.

I decided to point out the alternative… which evidently has quite gotten under your skin. Personally, I don’t care about O’beidy. And I care even less about the rebels in Libya. I want the US out of this clusterf*#K, and the snowball it will aid flying down the mountain. And I refuse to fall prey to the tricks the media will use to justify it.

I agree 100%

… the real reasons we are bombing Libya- the flow of oil and the Muslim exodus.


plus add to it the rising cost of gas (due to speculation), and the President does not want that in the approach to his reelection campaign.

The vast majority of the Arab League has bugged out of talks on Libya today in London.
Only 7 of over 22 Arab states showed up.

Arab countries present included Qatar, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
What a coalition!

But of course, Nan G. Get the US and western nations to do their dirty work and remove Gaddafi, take responsibility, then dispute the method in which it was done. Thus the entire thrust of my post about the Arab League duping us a week ago.

Personally, I’m not under the impression that the Arab League will throw over Gaddafi for pro western democracy forces. And I’m also extremely leery about what we do not know of this “council” of future transition leaders. Who are they, and what is their agenda?

What I do know is that the Arab League wins either way. If the west kills Libyan Muslims while enforcing the no fly zone, it’s a plus to their traditional rhetoric. Those accusations have already begun. They also can get rid of a leader with questionable loyalty, and still blame the meddling west for overstepping the bounds and assassinating Gaddafi. The icing on the cake is that the Arab League will have great influence with the upcoming transitional “council” since – as everyone loves to point out… including the UN – the Arab League was instrumental in getting the rebels the military aid from the international community for victory.

The question is, what have the western nations been duped into? How have they convinced western leaders to use military might to support a rebellion and civil war in a Muslim country, all without knowing the players in that rebellion?

I believe I have the answer to my own final question there… they play on western emotions. They know the US is susceptible politically to standing by while there is genocide or mass destruction of citizens (unless they are Dems and it’s Iraq, of course…). They convinced US female leaders by appealing to their base “for the people” bit. Obama ignored his defense specialists, and instead gave weight to Hillary, Susan and Samantha. Sarkozy piled on with a not so subtle “wuss!” type accusation, and Obama ended up caving…. but still claims the operation was “under his direction” via his BS speech last night. Damn that was funny….

The players all had different reasons. The women, because they had no business deciding foreign policy using emotions and demanding the US military satisfy those emotions. Sarkozy because of oil…. (while China celebrated that France would do their bidding for them…). And the Arab League to remove an apostate Muslim leader who dared question their Israel-Palestine concensus and cross their path openly.

There is no surprise the Arab League asks for US military, then goes MIA. In fact, it was expected. At least, by me.

@rich wheeler:

John G. You have a penchant to exaggerate.
I have failings,our President has failings.John Galt? You stand by your principles. OOH RAH

I do not have a “penchant” to exaggerate.

1. The act of worship
2. Profound love or regard

I believe my use of the word was correct, as you defend Obama and his actions quite often. Why the defense if you did not have a strong, or profound, regard for the man? Indeed, earlier you said you would be proud to keep the company of Obama. Why else be proud to keep the company of someone, unless you had strong, or profound, regard of that person.

As for failings, everyone has them. But it is a far cry to compare a simple failing in life to acting in complete opposition to a stated view, as Obama has done. That is either hypocrisy, or a lie, take your pick.


hypocrisy knows no partisan divide. This issue on Libya has created chasms between lib/progs and conservatives alike.

How true, how true. Would that we could have real leadership in government by people who stand on principle, and by their word.

I never claimed hypocrisy is a sin applicable only to libs/progs. What is fascinating, though, is the lengths of defense liberals will go to in their defense of the hypocrisy of liberal/prog politicians.

Naw, johngalt, didn’t suggest that you claimed hypocrisy was a sin only of the Dems. But I did want to point out the alternative that, interestingly enough, I hear from conservative friends who are pro this Libyan action. They never hesitate to point out that Reagan did the same, and they were quite proud. So there are actually some conservatives that believe using this as an Obama assault is actually not only hypocritical, but a sign of advanced ODS. LOL

I’d say the only reason you have heard the flip side… of those defending Reagan’s actions… is because they have not concentrated on turning the tables. But they will. If conservatives are already cognizant of this, the slow boat to China Dems will eventually pick up on the same.

I think it is quite common for Western (non-Muslim) women to not care a whit about the plight of Muslim females under Sharia.
I had two friends when I was fairly young: twin girls from Indonesia.
Their parents and older brothers were all Muslims.
I was happy to go to their swearing in when they got their citizenship.
They were teenagers in the 1970’s when their parents tried to force them back to Indonesia and into arranged marriages.
The men were their own cousins.
The price the men paid their parents was quite high as with American citizen wives they could move here.
First the girls tried to tell a school administrator.
But that led to the girls being locked up at home and kept from school.
Then the girls escaped and hid out with the help of friends.
One of their stories was that their parents would kill them if they couldn’t get them to their weddings.
The girls split up and one of them was found by her parents.
No one here ever saw her again.
The other girl moved to Oregon with a girlfriend who had a dorm room on a campus.
She is still doing well.
She has never seen or heard from her sister either.

So, I have been concerned about the rights and safety of Muslim females for decades.
As to this Libyan woman, you can take it with however big a grain of salt you want.

The thing that amazes me isn’t the ignorance of non-Muslim Western women about the treatment of Muslim females; it is the isolation and thus ignorance of Muslim females about how their fellow female Muslims are treated.
They don’t know.
That’s why so many of them think they can go home and end up dead or disappeared.

Nan G: I think it is quite common for Western (non-Muslim) women to not care a whit about the plight of Muslim females under Sharia.

And I think it’s quite common for western women to get so emotionally caught up in the perceived, if unverified, plight of a single individual, and thereby become quite willing to use that to justify sending US military might in to correct that. We’ve just seen that with Hillary, Susan and Samantha.

The thing that amazes me isn’t the ignorance of non-Muslim Western women about the treatment of Muslim females; it is the isolation and thus ignorance of Muslim females about how their fellow female Muslims are treated.
They don’t know.

Well ain’t that the leap across the Grand Canyon to justify your emotions, Nan G? I didn’t say I am ignorant of the plight of Muslim women in nations where they employ the Shariah that you, the infidel Sheik, apply to all Muslims in all countries… including here in the US… in a one size fits all fashion. I might add that Muslim American women know far more than you of treatment of females in some of these ME countries. You may play your word games all you wish. In the end, they are still mischaracterization and assumptions that demand a high price by the US and our military.

I don’t care about Ms. O’beidy’s plight because it’s being used to manipulate US opinion and draw on our resources. My heart feels for the kids in African nations that don’t have food and water too. Doesn’t mean I’ll drain US resources to correct what inevitably cannot be corrected.

“For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.”

President Barack Obama, 03/28/2011

Is any part of that statement untrue?

I think there might be a reason I can agree with in there somewhere.

Oh, so you supported Bush’s decision and Iraq then, Greg… right?

I suppose that depends on which Bush and which decision you’re referring to. In any case, Libya is not Iraq, and Obama is not Bush.


Is any part of that statement untrue?

Not at all, Greg. However, he also has said these tidbits.

We’re not going to baby sit a civil war.
Barack Obama, January of 2007 in opposition to buildup of troops in Iraq

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. – Obama, 2002

In the end, no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else’s civil war. – BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jan. 19, 2007

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
Barack Obama

Just a few of his quotes against either going into Iraq, or the further military operations in Iraq.

So, Greg, was he lying then about not wanting the U.S. involved in removing evil dictators from power, or is he lying now about wanting to remove evil dictators from power? Which is it, because it can be only one or the other?


Obama’s cognitive dissonance ploy only works if his listeners suffer from it as well.
And, as you showed, when confronted with a choice: is Obama lying NOW…..OR….was Obama lying THEN, his supporters have no answer.

His favorite fallacy put in an appearance during his Libya speech, too.
You know….the Straw Man.

Obama made it a bit more subtle than usual.
But he did it……

Obama argued his Libya policy by distancing himself from the “some” who “question why America should intervene at all,” and the “others” who “have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.”
His ”thread the needle” between these two positions is held up by him as the only right way to go.
Save civilian lives, prevent a refugee crisis, and “stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks,” without committing American money to the job of removing Gaddafi.

@Greg: “For more than four decades, the Libyan Iraqi people have been ruled by a tyrant – Muammar Qaddafi Saddam Hussein. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents and plotted to kill a former US President and who claimed to have WMD’s.”


No need to line out “Americans who were killed by Libyan agents” and replace it with the assasination attempt of President GHWB. As Gaddafi, SH did send his agents to kill Americans… from the Iraqi Perspectives Project:

11. A 1993 memo showing that Saddam wanted to use his trained terrorists to kill Americans bringing humanitarian assistence to Somalia.

15. A pre-9/11 memo from 2001 showing Saddam’s agents carrying out deliberate attacks on American aid workers.

New Report: "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism"

Saddam Hussein was many times worse than Gaddaffi would ever hope to be. My personal opinion is that the wuss we have in office needed to appear to have some cajones, so they send in the women to prop him up to promote what appeared to be an easy rout. What we have on our hands now is an epic fail.

@Missy: Thanks, Nan!

DrJohn, hi, now we know that he agree with the UN, which is also an organisation
dedicated to impose on our laws of the land by imposing their own CONSTITUTION,
no more VALID: THEIR GOAL are getting more accertive as time goes, they mingle

: Oh, so you supported Bush’s decision and Iraq then, Greg… right?

@Greg: I suppose that depends on which Bush and which decision you’re referring to. In any case, Libya is not Iraq, and Obama is not Bush.

@rich wheeler: GREG #39 OUTSTANDING

A little creepy when you find”coy” politically appealing in another adult male, rich. Me?… not so much. But to each his own.

Comparing Saddam and Gadhafi is like comparing Hitler and Stalin. Waste of time.
Supporting any of them suggests a problem.

DrJohn, on your 10, I think It’s very telling, of what he said turning the LIBYA CONFLICT toNATO, and you said who is the supreme commander of NATO,
like the WORLD ORGANISATION OWN NATO. IS IT a slip of the tongue which gave the TRUTH,
and I beleive the source of our own commenter confirming it,