Barack Obama Brings His Case for Action Against Libya to the American People

As you know the United States is currently involved with military action against the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi (I have seen too many ways to spell his name). On March 19, 2011 with French, American and British war planes began to take out air defenses and warplanes of the Libyan leader. The goal was supposed to be a "no fly zone" so that civilians were not slaughtered by the Libyan loyalist forces against the rebels. Rebels have said they can match ground troops but not the air power of Qaddafi. This seems to me like we are taking sides in a civil war and we should not be doing this. No matter what happens in Libya the United States and Barack Hussein Obama now own part of it.

Obama has claimed that we are there for humanitarian reasons and to insure a repressive regime does not slaughter innocent civilians before seeing "mass graves" and things of that nature. I do agree the United States and international community can't stand by while innocent civilians are slaughtered but we also should not take sides in a civil war as Obama has chose to do in this case. There are many who thought that Obama acted was too late. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA) both had called for action earlier. Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs said he could not recommend a no fly zone until the air forces were taken out to keep from having American causalities. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went further saying the "coalition military action" would continue until Qaddafi "fully complies" with the Security Council Resolution, "ceases his attacks on civilians, pulls his troops back from places they have forcibly entered, and allows key services and humanitarian assistance to reach all Libyans."

Let's examine this. Libya has a very small amount of Oil related to the United States and really would not have a huge bearing on prices, but gas has crept up by allowing the war to go on by aiding the rebels. If Libyan forces defeated them prices probably would have stabilized. Instead we aid the rebels and who knows where this conflict, or others like it, will go. At first Barack Obama said that Muammar Qaddafi did not have to go, but he has changed course by saying Qaddafi is not a target but had to be removed from power. While this has been occurring NATO forces said Muammar Qaddafi is a target and then that he is not. I realize the United Nations made a resolution, but the last time I heard the President of the United States of America does not take orders from the UN. He takes them from the constitution and the American people, yet there is no outrage among the Obama supporters

.

Now there are a few things that I have issue with here. For one thing Obama did not consult congress. This directly violates the constitution not that Obama thinks that document is worth more than toilet paper (see Obamacare, Dropping the case against the black panthers, and his refusal to enforce immigration laws going as far as suing Arizona). Extremely liberal, bordering on socialist, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich went as far as implying that Obama may have committed an impeachable offense. Others have mentioned the same thing. I don't think there is anything that Barack Hussein Obama could do that would make rank and file democrats vote to impeach him though regardless of the facts of the law. War Powers are clearly those of the Congress.

There also is the fact that many countries do things similar to what is and has been going on in Libya. Some countries have been firing on unarmed protesters recently and we have done nothing yet said it's wrong. The whole Middle East seems to be having issues like this. Stability by a less than perfect regime is better than chaos were terrorist groups could come in and cause more problems. The United States saw this occur with Afghanistan when the Russians invaded. In the Afghan conflict we were helping a nation that was invaded, while in Libya you have people that don't like their government. Another example is how China and Russia can treat their citizens at times. If there was another massacre of students by tanks in China do you think the USA would take this action? Heck no they would not. Why? They would not be picking on a little insignificant country. We are wasting 100 million per day on a campaign for a civil war that does not concern us. Yes we should help and maybe arm rebels but not the extent that we are involved.

Another thing people don't get is lots of these conflicts are simply people not liking their government. People don't like their government here. People sent a clear message of that in November 2010. The only reason the senate did not change is there were enough tax consumers in a couple states along with illegal immigrants and their supporters to put them over the top while others were liberal cesspools. If Obama wants to be so concerned about "leaders who do not listen to the voice of the people" or their opposition, then he needs to take a look at his own house. You need to look no further than the train wreck that is Obamacare. America did not want it and it was passed. Many democrats were thrown out of office because of voting for the bill and others to give Obama what they considered a win and Obama still does not get it. He should take a bit of his own advice. Like most things I believe his party and supporters are giving him a pass because they don't want anything to tarnish the "black messiah". First off he is only half black and second of all he has been doing nothing but making good speeches since day one. His speeches were actually better before. The only really good one he has made was the one after Congresswoman Giffords ( D-AZ) was shot. America is giving this socialist disgrace too much of a pass and it sickens me. People are wising up though. I thank God for that. What do you think Obama and Congress would do if many of States with common sense that did not want him in office were to secede from the union and start taking over military bases? He would do the same things they are in Libya.

The only thing that I really got out of his speech as that he would not have this as a prolonged conflict, which he can't say that. I am sure we never planned to be in Iraq as long as we were and still are to an extent. I also respect that he said he would not put us troops on the ground in the conflict. Now that is awfully nice of him. I thought him getting the Nobel Peace Prize was a joke as it was since he was only in office a couple weeks by the time that his name would have been submitted, but this makes it look even more stupid. The only thing less intelligent is people who still defend him. Personally he can keep the change.

Sources and further reading

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/29/6367597-first-thoughts-necessary-realistic-and-
unsatisfactory

http://www.rferl.org/content/libya_qaddafi_london_meeting/3540478.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-calls-says-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense-for-obama.php