another outstanding citizen
James WoodsVerified account @RealJamesWoods
Beyond the pale... pic.twitter.com/WmANYShJQw
the v a g i n a warrior's qualifications for congress:
http://www.arousedwoman.com/
Benghazi scandal tied to White House
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
the v a g i n a warrior's qualifications for congress:
http://www.arousedwoman.com/
Gawd....You never quit deflecting do you?
In just looking for a few minutes, I found several instances...
Here's one....
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/u...09450-quit-picking-romney-23.html#post1666832
Read my first words....afterwards I dropped out of the argument.....
Now, you go ahead and match that.....and since I should follow my own advice to the others, I'm through arguing with a know-it-all like you.....You can now enjoy the last word in this convo.....
Not true. The UN didn't authorize US sponsored regime change.
Obama imposed the Obama Doctrine. As a result there was regime change. The UN didn't authorize regime change in Libya.
Obama imposed the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, and is chargeable with the consequences. Your president is accountable.
The UN didn't authorize occupation or regime change. This is all on Obama. Obama's supporters need to accept the beat down that is never going to end. Ever.
Ok, so you post a lot without getting your facts straight first. That is not exactly a positive trait.
If you can show me that I am factually wrong, I am more than happy to correct that stuff. People here are just mad because they think my opinion and their's is right, and they want me to admit their opinion is right. I simply don't agree with their opinion.
What exactly did the US do that was different from the rest of the UN forces in Libya?
France and the UK were the most eager to get involved, and largely lead the operation.
What exactly do you believe the "Obama Doctrine" is? Lots of people have different ideas of what that is.
Responsibility to protect was adopted by the UN in 2005. What role did Obama have in that?
Again, this was a UN mission, largely lead by France and the UK. It was French fighter planes that ended up bombing Gaddafi's convoy. It was a UN choice to end their involvement 10 days after Gaddafi died.
Where do you get this idea that this is something that Obama is singularly responsible for?
The UN doesn't have an army of its own. It has member states that carry out the actions that it decides on.
Blue helmets simply represent peace keeping forces. This was not a peace keeping mission.
Again, you completely ignored the key point that the UN adopted responsibility to protect back in 2005.
What role did Obama have in that? How does something that predated his presidency by a number of years become his?
The initial strike was by both the US and the UK. These actions were quite clearly authorized in the UN resolution.
The US commander in chief authorized the actions by the US military just like the commander in chief of every other nation involved authorized the actions by their military. I have not seen any evidence that the US did anything special that the rest of the forces did not do. They were much more reluctant to go into Libya than countries like the UK and France.
Only the US had the inventory of cruise missiles and drones needed to take down the Libyan air defense system. Britain tried to help, but ran out of cruise missiles. But for the actions of your president the air assault on the Libyan Govt. would not have been possible. Additionally, Obama authorized use of American intelligence, command, control and reconnaissance without which European air assaults on the military assets of the Libyan Govt. wouldn't have been possible.
More importantly, your president permitted Qatar to transfer weapons to al Qaeda affiliated groups. This is when Obama allied himself tacitly with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda won in Libya and their victory led directly to the deaths of the US Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.
What did the US gain by Obama's actions in Libya? The spread of al Qaeda.
There is no question that the US bring a lot great deal of military power along with their involvement, but I disagree with your assertion that they could not have done this without them.
The campaign certainly would have been different without US involvement, but Libya is not exactly a super power. France and the UK were willing to start enforcing a no fly zone over rebel held areas on their own.
The extent of involvement from Al Qaeda is the source of significant debate. The claims that the US transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to al Qaeda comes from a right wing think tank who created a report called the "Citizens Committee On Benghazi".
You can have a look at the people behind this report and decide how valid you think it really is.
Meet The Conspiracy Theorists Behind The New Benghazi Report Hyped By Fox | Research | Media Matters for America
You obviously have to take all of these sites with a grain of salt, but do you disagree with any of the facts that they present about the people behind the reports?
Yep, just like Fox is Roop's puppet and the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and ALEC are the Koch brothers' puppets.
So what?
Britain and France lacked the firepower to bring down Libya's advanced integrated air defense system. For example:
"...During the Libyan conflict [Britain] actually ran out of cruise missiles, and had to beg the Americans for replacements..."
After the mess we've made of Libya, Mr Hammond, it's no wonder Britain is war-weary – Telegraph Blogs
Neither were the Viet Cong. Britain and France have atrophied militaries.
Britain and France are not capable of imposing a no fly zone on any state with an advanced integrated air defense system fighting on its own soil. The Euros are too weak. Their pilots are too inexperienced. Their aircraft would have been shot down and their surviving pilots would have been paraded through the streets of Tripoli.
No it isn't. Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb both existed in Libya prior to the beginning of the Libyan Civil War, and both had veterans who had been battle hardened in fighting American forces in Iraq. Libya was one of the primary sources of foreign jihadis fighting in Iraq.
I direct your attention to the following:
"The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I don't accept Media Matters as a legitimate source. I have enough respect for your intellect not to provide you with a biased source which I know you will reject.
Simple supply issues are not really a big problem. US involvement or not, the US would have happily sold their allies anything they needed.
So now you are comparing this conflict with the Vietnam war?
Enforcing a no fly zone and providing air support is a very different endeavor.
Well, since we never saw it happen, I guess that is up for debate.
The fact is that they were willing to go in on their own. No doubt that US involvement dramatically increased the strength of the coalition though.
The UK Air Force has been involved in pretty much every major recent conflict that the US has been, so why would you say they are inexperienced?
I never said that the fact that there was any al Qaeda involvement at all was up for debate, the debate is over the extent.
This is an article largely based on unnamed sources. What are the chances that many of them are the exact same people from the Citizens Commission on Benghazi?
Even if these claims can be substantiated, your quote is pretty misleading. It isn't like the US ordered these shipments or supplied them, the question is if they were keeping tabs on what other countries were doing. Why does that fall on the US and not NATO and the rest of the coalition?
Lol, really? You supplied a blog post and a newspaper article. At leas that article provides clear references. You don't need to rely on anything that media maters tells you, just look at the other work of the people who crafted the report.
You don't know that. This is simply supposition. Neither Britain nor France possessed the same CC&R assets as the US.
No. You said Libya wasn't a great power. I simply cited the Viet Cong for the proposition that even the American Superpower can be defeated under the right circumstances.
Not true. Only the US could take down an advanced integrated air defense system. Look at Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of Euro weakness. It took the USAF to take down the Serbian air defenses.
Seeing British and French pilots paraded through the streets of third world countries gives us something to look forward to doesn't it?
The British, French and Italians had commercial interests in the form of oil and gas to protect. That's why they wanted Uncle Sam to save their bacon.
Lack of training in the air. That type of training requires lots of money that the British and French aren't willing to spend on their air forces.
Thank you for the admission that al Qaeda was involved from the beginning.
The article appeared in the NY Times...the Grey Lady...the Newspaper of Record. The NY Times is the best paper in the country and authenticates its sources even when it doesn't disclose them. Besides the NY Times is allied with the Obama Administration. Take this as an admission against interest.
The burden of proof on this point is on you.
Under American law US manufactured weapons cannot be transferred by a recipient without the prior consent of the United States. Violation of this law...and agreement...means termination of the US weapons supply relationship. This is basic.
Media Matters is a Secion 501(c)(4) organization acting as the mouthpiece of its benefactor...George Soros...who has a political agenda. The Telegraph is a reputable British newspaper. Con Coughlin is a respected analyst.
The US has supplied their allies with weapons for decades. Why would that change for this conflict?
Comparing it to a completely different kind of conflict just kind of makes you look stupid.
You claim that their air defense is so advanced, but how long did it take to destroy it?
Sure.
That is also why they were willing to go in alone.
You said they didn't have experience, not that they are untrained. Why are you changing your point?
Can you name any part of the Middle East that has zero al Qaeda presence?
A big name newspaper is still a newspaper. It is a secondary source, and if they don't provide their primary sources, there is no way to verify anything that they claim.
Lol, no. You can't just provide a whole bunch of info, refuse to disclose your sources, and then tell me they are all valid unless I can discredit your unnamed sources.
A violation of some weapons supply relationship is a hell of a lot different than implying that they directly supplied terrorist with weapons. You don't even supply any proof that they did get into the wrong hands, just a bunch of people claiming that it might have happened.
A newspaper is a newspaper. It is not a source for anything.
The media maters page provided you with tons of primary sources about what these people believe. You don't need to read a single word written by Media Matters.
Tom Cotton Savages Democrats on Benghazi
Today Congressman Tom Cotton spoke, along with other House members, on the formation of the select committee on Benghazi. With barely controlled indignation, he ripped the Democrats’ “fake outrage” over the Benghazi investigation. Recalling the treacherous conduct of many Democrats during the Iraq war, he asked, Where was the outrage then? Cotton harkened back to the lessons he learned in the Army, noting that on the night of September 11, 2012, Barack Obama failed to meet the standard that the Army expects from its lieutenants. He concluded with one more lesson from his military days:
Tom Cotton Savages Democrats on Benghazi | Power Line
Today Congressman Tom Cotton spoke, along with other House members, on the formation of the select committee on Benghazi. With barely controlled indignation, he ripped the Democrats’ “fake outrage” over the Benghazi investigation. Recalling the treacherous conduct of many Democrats during the Iraq war, he asked, Where was the outrage then? Cotton harkened back to the lessons he learned in the Army, noting that on the night of September 11, 2012, Barack Obama failed to meet the standard that the Army expects from its lieutenants. He concluded with one more lesson from his military days:
Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice and the American people deserve the truth. One other lesson I learned in the Army is we leave no man behind. We will not leave these four men behind.
This is a don’t-miss video:
Tom Cotton Savages Democrats on Benghazi | Power Line