Courtesy CNN
|
Troops? What troops?
The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO.
The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster the Libyan rebels, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Asked whether the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, “I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that’s probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail.”
Ham also disclosed that the U.S. is providing some strike aircraft to the NATO operation that do not need to go through the special approval process recently established. The powerful side-firing AC-130 gunship is available to NATO commanders, he said.
The civil war has cut Libyan oil output by 80 percent, a senior government official said on Thursday, as rebels and Gadhafi’s forces traded charges over who had attacked oil fields vital to both sides.
Wed Mar 23, 11:44 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama Wednesday categorically ruled out a land invasion to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as coalition forces launched a fifth day of air strikes against government military targets in the North African nation.
The latest news says that Libyan rebels have accused NATO of being too slow to act – and asked them to suspend operations unless they “do the job properly”. There seems to be another conflict waiting to happen even within the alliance forces.
When it is about disposing a dictator and restoring democracy it will always be a good cause. When it becomes about oil, then it becomes a bad cause.
#72, Meters,
I’m not even done. Most of the TARP $$$ went to foreign banks. More than 50%.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/42944/20100812/tarp-bailout-banks.htm
First, I wish you were done. Most of the TARP money did NOT go to foreign banks. A lot did, which was all in the interest of rescuing AIG. No foreign bank received any direct money.
While I disagree with bailing out AIG, I do recognize that they had way overextended themselves insuring those “credit swaps”. The foreign held bonds were jumbled up with the American and there was no way to split them up. If the TARP funds only paid for the American “credit swaps” then the results would have been much worse, financially and politically.
Second, your link says nothing of the source. It points out that the only money that went to foreign banks went through the AIG. That means you didn’t even read your link and directly lied.
#82->See #18 and #37 above. You support Obama’s war in Libya against its sovereign government without congressional approval as per Section 1, Article 8?
#84->Make that Article 1, Section 8.
#84, G2
Where in that post did I mention anything about going to war? I’m sorry reading isn’t your strong point.
#86->Exactly my point and thanks for confirming it. We haven’t gone to war.
We’ve bombed a country that was no threat to us. That makes Obama a war criminal.
#87,
I see comprehension is also one of your weak points. There is a United Nations mandate that the US is required, by treaty, to uphold.
Coincidentally, that is more than the invaders of Iraq, Panama, and Grenada had.
#88->Treaties do not override law. The president took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not the UN charter.
And I don’t defend Iraq, Panama, or Grenada either. Illegal, all of them, too.
Obama is a hypocrite and a liar. In 2007 he knew it was wrong. Now it’s not? What’s the difference between now and then? Do the ends justify the means? How can you seriously defend one but not the others?
“Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it defines national interests to include ideological interests e.g. the defense of other nations with similar ideologies for geopolitical purposes, proposing to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.”
Wikipedia
How may of you Obama fans fit into this category?
gregorio alvarez alvarez…..¿come pescado panga?