• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama Signs Order Authorizing Covert Operations in Libya

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
President Barack Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya, FOX News Channel reported Wednesday, citing a US official. The news was first reported by Reuters, which said Obama signed the measure within the last "two to three weeks," citing four US government sources familiar with the matter.......

The news comes as The New York Times reported Wednesday that the CIA had clandestine operatives on the ground in Libya. The unknown number of operatives included those from the agency's station in Tripoli as well as operatives who arrived recently, the report said. The operatives were being used to gather intelligence on targets for airstrikes and to make contact with rebel forces and have been in the country for several weeks, according to The Times.

And so it begins.

President Obama Signs Order Authorizing Covert Operations in Libya
 
Mission creep.



So when will the lunatic fringe be out to protest and boycott Obama's war for italian oil?
 
I kind of assumed this was already going on -- don't we want eyes on the ground "gathering intelligence on targets for airstrikes"? Don't we want to take reasonable measures to ensure we're not bombing aspirin factories or otherwise killing civilians?
 
*sigh* I wish I could say this was a surprise.
 
If you can't even keep your plans off the front page, you have no right to be in the covert operations business. Frankly, putting agents on the ground in Libya makes perfect sense, but only if you can keep them hidden. The CIA has pretty much become a laughingstock in the last decade with so many publicly embarrassing failures.
 
If you can't even keep your plans off the front page, you have no right to be in the covert operations business. Frankly, putting agents on the ground in Libya makes perfect sense, but only if you can keep them hidden. The CIA has pretty much become a laughingstock in the last decade with so many publicly embarrassing failures.

lol

That's assuming you've heard of everything theyve done in the last 10 years...

I'm gonna say no :2razz:
 
America as usual. Helping oppressed people attain peace and freedom. What fools.

BTW, thanks for ditching Hellen.

Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.
 

Yeah, I'm watching that pretty close myself.

So far its being claimed that its "spies" basically. Painting targets for accuracy, avoiding collateral damage, etc. That and making contact with rebel elements to see who we're supporting.

But as Jeremy Scahill stated last night its less than a thousand rebels, so how realistic is it.

I don't have a problem with preventing a massacre, but I don't like where this is heading. Especially in light of what's going on in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Dammit.
 
So special ops meet up with a small faction of people that attack Libyan governments militairy... Hrm.............
 
As much as I find Obama worthless I can't really complain because I suggested covert actions early on.

I would like to see the overall strategy and some kind of comprehensive exit plan.

I still think A hit team could have saved us hundreds of Millions of Dollars.

It is very curious that after all the finger pointing, name call, and complaints about President Bush and what he did in the Middle east, here we are and it's basically déjà vu all over again.

I have made personal note that some Democrats are not thrilled with this action, and others taken by Obama.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International...overt-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028&amp&amp

NATO Rules Out Arming Rebels - WSJ.com

1. the president and his coalition partners are not being STRAIGHT with us concerning their mission

2. the president and his coalition partners CAN'T be straight with us about their mission cuz THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS

3. if the president and his coalition partners do NOT arm the rebels, then their HUMANITARIAN mission is doomed because, as things are now, the rebels have NO chance of ousting gadaffi on their own, and if the madman remains he'll KILL the people the president and his partners claim they are there to save

worry
 
Last edited:
Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.

In some cases it's worth the risk.

North Korea is one of those.
 
Last edited:
In some cases it's worth the risk.

North Korea is one of those.

I agree, however North Korea is different. They are an aggressive nation that possesses nuclear weapons. Invading them would be a defensive action to prevent the aggressive North Korea from attacking our allies: South Korea and Japan. North Korea also has the most oppressive government on earth. Each country and issue is different. But if the goal is to spread freedom and liberate people from oppressive leaders, then why aren't we in half the world right now? Can we really expect that ousting leaders will result in peace and freedom? In many cases a new oppressive government takes advantage of the turmoil and may we worse than the first. The other opinion would be for the US to establish foreign governments, which I do not support as this may be seen as US imperialism or colonization. True freedom and liberation would be allowing the citizens of a country to establish their own government, and sometimes they establish one that is contrary to US values and ideals. We can't liberate and establish governments that are satisfactory to our desires as a nation. I don't think America should liberate every country, and I think each military action is an issue of its own and not equitable with another.
 
I agree, however North Korea is different. They are an aggressive nation that possesses nuclear weapons. Invading them would be a defensive action to prevent the aggressive North Korea from attacking our allies: South Korea and Japan. North Korea also has the most oppressive government on earth. Each country and issue is different. But if the goal is to spread freedom and liberate people from oppressive leaders, then why aren't we in half the world right now? Can we really expect that ousting leaders will result in peace and freedom? In many cases a new oppressive government takes advantage of the turmoil and may we worse than the first. The other opinion would be for the US to establish foreign governments, which I do not support as this may be seen as US imperialism or colonization. True freedom and liberation would be allowing the citizens of a country to establish their own government, and sometimes they establish one that is contrary to US values and ideals. We can't liberate and establish governments that are satisfactory to our desires as a nation. I don't think America should liberate every country, and I think each military action is an issue of its own and not equitable with another.

Kimmy is agressive but I don't believe the people are.

After serving in S. Korea I have to believe the N. Korean's are no different just because someone drew a line through their country.
 
and just who are these rebels the president and his coalition partners are DEPENDENT upon to oust gadaffi and then BUILD THEIR NATION once the tyrant is gone?

The Rebels from Benghazi: Chaos and Uncertainty in Libya's Revolutionary Leadership - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

according to der spiegel, they are so disorganized and chaotic they've been accidentally killing each other, ruining tanks they've captured and shooting down their own planes

if we rely on the rebels, der spiegel suggests, the mission (whatever it exactly is) will drag on for months

after gadaffi, it's "anyone's guess"

libya is a "political no man's land"

"the highest form of political organization are soccer clubs"

the rebels' leadership appears to be self appointed presidents and prime ministers, self styled press spokespersons and commanders

mostly former gadaffi aids, lawyers, businessmen and academics

"most of those now calling the shots are sons of the former regime"

asked about elections, one of em answered, "we're not concerned with these details"

essentially, the rebels are comprised of "tribes, criminal gangs, warlords and jihad groups"

they may soon be "well armed with western weapons"

meanwhile benghazi, their base, is "descending into mistrust and fear"

stores are closed, people are afraid to share with neighbors even their phone numbers

no one dares speak out against either the regime or the rebel movement

gadaffi's spies inflitrate the rebels' councils, no one goes out at nite

death squads on both sides---in benghazi

council leaders no longer seen in public

the national council is "on the verge of collapse"

rebels roam the streets at nite, arrest and kill people they believe are regime supporters

the very picture of paranoia

sub saharan africans---from chad, mali, the sudan---are arrested (or worse), suspected of being mercenaries, tho many are probably just construction workers

der spiegel sees parallels "straight from the soviet revolutionaries," but the reality may more resemble paris, 1793

all that's missing seem to be the tumbrils

worry
 
combat boots webb from virginia (who's gonna pose a LOT of problems for the party, by the way) today:

RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. Webb On Libya: "We Are Clearly Involved In Regime Change"

can you deny it, the white house does

and yet, if regime is NOT changed, then humanitarianism in libya is a dead letter

fundamentally incoherent, mr commander in chief

wise watchers could expect no other, tho, after watching the totally incompetent and confused waging of OBAMA'S WAR in afghanistan

stay up (which means go after the issues and the news figures, not each other)

pray for our soldiers, our nation, the libyans...
 
gates and mullen appeared today before house armed services

republicans grilled em

Gates, Mullen face hostile Libya questions - CNN.com

miller of florida---a vote today in this chamber would fail, the rebels are getting their butts whipped

turner of ohio---goals unclear, the white house has not been honest with us

coffman, colorado---the most muddled mission in american history

democrat loesback of iowa---lotta concerns about who the rebels are

gates---we have "not much visibility" into the rebels

gates---their ability to govern is limited or nonexistent

jones of north carolina---we already can't pay our bills, there's been no consultation with congress whatsoever

gibson, ny---military and political goals are "not harmonized"

can you deny any of it?

worry
 
it's worth noting at this point how much we are relying on foreign sources, der spiegel, the guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/31/libya-rebels-brega-assault-fails

Libya's revolutionary leadership has denied that its military campaign is in crisis even as its forces were driven further into retreat after a failed attempt to retake the oil town of Brega [150 miles west of gadaffi hometown and stronghold sirte/surt/sidra].

The rebels launched an assault on Brega in a bid to prevent Muammar Gaddafi's forces from threatening Ajdabiya, the gateway to the revolutionaries' de facto capital of Benghazi and other "liberated" towns along Libya's eastern coast. But the government army swiftly repelled the rebel attack even though Gaddafi's forces were also hit by western air strikes.

The rebels again turned and fled under a barrage of rocket fire as Gaddafi's army adopted some of the revolutionaries' own [flanking] tactics – highly mobile units using weapons mounted on pickup trucks so as to be less vulnerable to the air strikes.

a major subtheme of the story is the rebels' insistence that the cause is not lost

is that bad news? good?

another issue raised---how long it takes to train soldiers in the hi tech use of the weapons, frankly, that hillary is pushing to provide the rebels who look so much like a paris mob

it's the "revolutionary spokesman" in benghazi, in fact, who worries out loud about the operation, for instance, of surface to air rockets

der spiegel spoke of the rebels ruining captured tanks thru inability to handle em, another example

pray
 
Last edited:
another issue raised---how long it takes to train soldiers in the hi tech use of the weapons, frankly, that hillary is pushing to provide the rebels who look so much like a paris mob

SOFs cannot be mass produced and competent SOFs cannot be created after emergencies occur.

Also, this bull**** about President Obama calling for Omar to step down. Since when does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation (that they haven't defeated in war)? Since when did Omar become accountable to Obama? And our press just goes with it, Prof
 
The UN and NATO were on Libya faster than flies to **** once the country became unstable. That's what happens when oil security is involved.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with toppling a brutal dictator. Just a few months ago, he was our ally.

We're only installing democracy now because it's more convenient for us and it pleases the Libyans who would otherwise hate us for not supporting it.

I'm so sick of the meaningless double talk from the White House. The day they say one honest thing is the day that we all go ice skating in hell.
 
Back
Top Bottom