French Warplanes Enforcing Ceasefire in Libya After Gadhafi Keeps Up Attacks

The u.s. is falling into the french trap to be blamed for war in the arab world, while they ntake all the cheap oil.

"You will always be my son and I have love for you."? That to the US President. Is anyone curious as to what he sees as he looks at the public? Does he see them as Al Queda as he mentions he is fighting, and call this insane now.

With respect and regard, I must still say that the French do need to build their STREET CRED!

DEC
Glendale CA

Maybe if the Libyan GOVERNMENT WINS he WILL CUT FRANCES OIL OFF!!

I feel deep shame over the strikes on Libya. Who really believes that these massive air strikes are for the protection of Libyan civilians? Anybody with a sense of goodness and decency must find all the concoctions of justification appalling and revolting. The whole charade by the West is saddening and sickening. We might as well just declare openly that we are aiding the rebels to overthrow and kill Gadhafi. I think it would be a more honorable posture.

230 years ago French artillery and troops, at Washington's side near Yorktown, helped bring down the British Army , which led to the independence of the United States. I know, I know - "What have you done for me lately?" Of course today's reality is more important than emotional memories about the past. But here we are dealing with a tough situation in Libya, and the French and we are together. I've read the comments so far, and wonder if I'm the only one who notices, again and again, the digs at the French, subtle or otherwise? I'm an American; I don't feel any inferiority complex toward them, but I have to say that's what an awful lot of this comment looks like. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

Opinion: 5 Reasons Not to Strike Libya
Mar 3, 2011 – 7:00 AM

J.D. Gordon
Contributor
Conventional wisdom might suggest that the U.S. military should step in to halt a notorious dictator from carrying out ruthless crackdowns on his own people -- especially against those standing up for "democracy". This group in eastern Libya has also ben classified by our State Department as a terrorist group.
This week Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered two Navy amphibious ships, USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, along with a contingent of Marines through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean -- though he stressed they would be in place for humanitarian relief and potential evacuations.
While noncombatant operations are one thing, combat missions, including European-led talk of establishing a "no-fly zone," are quite another.
So while U.S. leaders continue to discuss options for military contingencies with NATO allies, they ought to think 10 times before committing the use of force.
Here are just five reasons why:
U.S. intervention in Libya would inflame the anti-American sentiment already prevalent in the Middle East, North Africa and other regions. Al-Qaida, pro-caliphate and pan-Arab nationalist crowds would use any U.S. military action taken against Muslims for their propaganda purposes. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, our chief critic in Latin America, is already exploiting the oil argument, with claims that the U.S. is distorting the situation to "justify an invasion."
U.S. allies need to take more responsibility for their security and economic prosperity. Some 85 percent of Libya's oil goes to European Union countries. Allies who have been vocal in the Libyan crisis -- the U.K., France and Germany -- can combine forces to enforce a "no-fly zone" and launch ground operations, if they desire.
Libya is in such a state of chaos that U.S. troops could very well be attacked by anyone. Gadhafi's military, militias and mercenaries would rally around their leader to protect the regime. The pro-democracy rebellion, meanwhile, has depicted Gadhafi with a Star of David, stocked full of U.S. dollars. Its ranks contain dangerous anti-American and anti-Semitic strains -- those who wouldn't likely receive the U.S. as liberators. Sound familiar?
U.S. forces are already stretched thin by two wars -- 97,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. Shouldering the bulk of costs in dollars and lives in both wars fought for Western interests -- let alone bearing primary responsibility for politically radioactive yet necessary missions like detention operations and interrogations -- our forces already have enough on their plate.
It could be worse. It's worth noting that bad as Gadhafi is -- his order to sabotage Pan Am Flight 103 stands out as one of the most heinous cases of state terrorism in history -- it's always possible that we could end up with someone worse.
This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that "in the years ahead, Libya could become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war." Even that presupposes that a democratic Libya would even be peaceful.
If history has taught us anything, it should be that democracies aren't necessarily peaceful -- particularly those with deeply troubled social and economic conditions.
Take Gaza, for instance. Once Palestinians had a chance to pick their leaders in 2006, they elected Hamas, a terrorist organization -- which, when cut off from Western aid, fired rockets into Israel.
There's no question that Libya is in for a rough road ahead. U.S. military intervention in Libya would only make the journey worse.
J.D. Gordon is a communications consultant to several Washington, D.C., think tanks and a retired Navy commander who served in the office of the secretary of defense from 2005 to 2009 as the Pentagon's spokesman for the Western Hemisphere.

Western Colonialism and Attitude Raising its Ugly Head Again
Why are we again sticking our nose into other people's affairs? Do we not already have our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan? Since when have we ever cared about people being killed by their governments? Do we only act if the "victims" are nonblack Africans with oil as one of their exports? Why didn't we help the people in Dafur? Blackies are "not human" in Western eyes. Why are France and all these Western countries so gung-ho about Libya? If a group of people started to wage war in France against their government, what do you think will be Krazy Sarkozy's response or any government's response? Look at what Bahrain and Yemen governments are doing? Killing their people of course but does Sarkozy and David Cameron or Obama say anything? Of course not. What do they really want in Libya? Another regime change. Why are they so selective about regime change when all these monarchies in the Middle East are essentially behaving the same way? So Krazy Sarkozy has a hard-on for Gaddafi and dragged Obama along because for some reason, this is not the same Obama we elected into office. He has become spineless and toothless. He has become a damn Uncle Tom. Unfortunately, the GOP is worst so we're stuck with the lesser of the two evils. Obama says no US boots on the ground in Libya. Who is he kidding? I would like to point out all the dictatorships around the world the US have been supporting for a long time and have said nothing about the atrocities they have done to their civilian population. Dictators like Marcos of the Philippines, Somoza of Nicaragua, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, Trujillo of Cuba, Pinochet of Chile, and on and on.. yet they want to save some rebel civilians trying to overthrow their government by force?? I wonder what Obama would do if the same scenario played out here in the USA?? Send in the SWAT and the National Guard Units?? And so these politicians want to play soldier boy and war games again? .... still didn't learn from Iraq and Afghanistan?? Still have plenty of money to burn, do we Mr. Obama??
Now the Arab League are crying foul! We said No fly zone, not bombing run on the civilian population... stupid politicians...

A final note. Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels(meaning Americans)." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from Eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States, France, the UK and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence. That means that Gaddafi didn't sent them to Iraq. Eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. We went to war in Libya to support a group of ******** who kills Americans in Iraq, just because they are against Gaddafi? What gives? The enemy of my enemy is my friend despite the fact that he also loves killing Americans Maybe Obama really is a Muslim? A very stupid one at that, like those now complaining in the Arab League, after agreeing to the UN Resolution but probably never read or understood the document.

I see zero justification in anyone invading or enforcing a no fly zone in Libya. The international band of THUGS (masquerading as the 'international community') are just looking for a new way to meddle in a country who's leader does not dance to the tune they demand. Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Somoza all former allies that we discarded when no longer convienent for us. Electoral considerations in France and bullying have far more to do with this then protecting the putative poor helpless masses.

Since the overthrow of King Idris by Kaddafi, Libya is intrinsically a land of various tribal factions, not unlike the Hijaz and Nejed that used to share the Arabian peninsula until British interlopers separated them for external political and oil interests. For as interloper Britain gave the price to Abdel Aziz and not for any humanitarian act of pax hominibus!

Did it ever occur to these modern western hypocrites that the underpinning of the current conflict in Libya is an opportunistic group of less favoured tribes sensing vulnerability and attempting to attack the government which is allegiant to other tribes? If tribalism indeed turns out to be a factor then it is simply a matter of neutrality as one tribe is not in any way superior to the other and no western meddling is warrented. Neither can one find real business nor strategic interests, only those for local populist political consumption, hardly a reason for intervention. UNLESS it might be discovered that the current Libyan regime is charging too much for it's oil interests to keep the corporatocracy happy, at least that would be less hypocritical.

How would the untouchable US react if the Unionists of Wisconsin amassed in Wahington with weapon? For an answer refer to the march of the ILWW of the world in the early 1920's. As far as the cruelty of Khaddafi one might point out as a colorrary the multi millions suffering in the prison gulag in the US, including many in isolation. Before one accuses another of being a 'Tyrant", something used ad nauseum by the last two political chef d'etat here to justify invasion one should examine their own house first.

I wonder where are the anti-war liberals; why aren't they calling obama a "war monger"? We have no clear objective and what is "limited military action"? It sounds like half-war and micro managing. What is obama going to do if gadhafi uses children as shields (which he will)? Is obama going to use the same "limited military action" against Bahrain? They are doing the same thing; yet no mention from the media?