• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"To my Dear Obama, Our Son", says Gaddifi

Mike

Well-known member
"You will always remain a son". Pretty telling. :lol:


'To my Dear Obama, our son', says Gaddafi, defending attack on rebels
19 Mar 2011, 1757 hrs IST, AGENCIES
Calling Barack Obama as "our son", Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.

Gaddafi(68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was "void" and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would "regret" any intervention.

"Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.

Details of Gaddafi's letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.

Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, "Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."

Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."

In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, "Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country."

You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is Al Qaeda organisation."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Silver said:
I thought the Tomahawk missiles Obama used to lay waste to Libya's air defense systems was pretty telling too.

very telling

Acting alone while Congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on Libya -- a dictatorial maneuver to force a regime change in a foreign land.



Under what authority did Obama green-light this dictatorial assault? To be certain, Qadaffi is no prize, but what Obama just did is nevertheless unacceptable. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his oath of office, Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act -- all in one mindless, knee-jerk decision.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_attacks_libya_and_wheres.html
 

Silver

Well-known member
Gawd, I've never pretended to be a supporter of Obama's, but some folks will crucify him regardless of what he does. If he does nothing, he's fiddling while Rome burns. If he does something, he's a dictator :roll:
I didn't hear of any votes in Ottawa (maybe I'm wrong?) and I haven't heard Harper being branded a dictator on this one.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Besides sanctions, I didn't know Canada was involved yet.

OTTAWA — Canada will not take part in any air operations over Libya for at least 48 hours, officials said Sunday afternoon.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay rejected international reports that Canadians were already participating in a bombing raid on the embattled country.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+days+away+from+enforcing+Libya+zone+officials/4474405/story.html#ixzz1HCrrYp5t
 

Silver

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Besides sanctions, I didn't know Canada was involved yet.

OTTAWA — Canada will not take part in any air operations over Libya for at least 48 hours, officials said Sunday afternoon.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay rejected international reports that Canadians were already participating in a bombing raid on the embattled country.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+days+away+from+enforcing+Libya+zone+officials/4474405/story.html#ixzz1HCrrYp5t

I would say Canada was involved the minute our personnel and assets left Canada for the region, and Harper told us that we could expect to inflict casualties and possibly experience casualties.
Saying we are not involved 'yet' is arguing semantics. Is Harper a dictator for sending them?
 

jingo2

Well-known member
The racial poster from Alabama would kiss the azz of Louis Farrakhan and if it would save his own azzz........

Ghadaffi is doing the same...

...and Canada took on the challenge just as all the other countries in the Allied group has..


Iinstead of complaining from the comfort of your armchair w/ a laptop.....WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE INSTEAD???
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Silver said:
hypocritexposer said:
Besides sanctions, I didn't know Canada was involved yet.

OTTAWA — Canada will not take part in any air operations over Libya for at least 48 hours, officials said Sunday afternoon.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay rejected international reports that Canadians were already participating in a bombing raid on the embattled country.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+days+away+from+enforcing+Libya+zone+officials/4474405/story.html#ixzz1HCrrYp5t

I would say Canada was involved the minute our personnel and assets left Canada for the region, and Harper told us that we could expect to inflict casualties and possibly experience casualties.
Saying we are not involved 'yet' is arguing semantics. Is Harper a dictator for sending them?

What are the laws regarding the sending of Canadian military and equipment?

I don't think we should be there, fighting along side al queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, that's for sure.

If there are existing laws for our countries regarding war, then we should be following them, in this case and all others.

any vote might happen today and moving equipment into position may be semantics, but it is still not "being involved" in a theatre of war until you have gone into their airspace or put "boots on the ground"

Has the US been involved for weeks? Their navy and military have been moving equipment into position for quite some time now. They didn't just get there over night.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Fighting alongside the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Quaeda are we? You and Qadafi must be on the same water system.
As far as I'm concerned, when a nation turns on it's citizens in this fashion the world needs to come to their defense. That's what the U.N. is for and thank God they finally moved in a timely fashion. It's unfortunate that there are so many folks living in the confines of comfort and freedom that have no care and no compassion for those facing what folks like the Libyans are right now.
And yet it was okay to rush to the aid of a kingdom like Kuwait and save the emirats seat of power? Hmmm..... I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, and regardless of my personal thoughts on Obama say that he got this one right.
 

jigs

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Iinstead of complaining from the comfort of your armchair w/ a laptop.....WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE INSTEAD???

Kola, that old line will give you away....

lets sum it up, Obama, is a Muslim, yet as President, he must defend America, and that means he may have to bomb Muslims.
now his good buddy, and finacier, Kaddafi, is letting him know that if America invades Lybia, he knows it it the infedels , not Obama, that is calling the shots....

if the press was worth a ****, they would ask if Obama was a brother of Mumar....

the skeletons in the closet of Obama are falling out on the floor...I hope they dig into them and expose him and the liberals for the America haters they are,!
 
The US has no legitimate security interest in Libya.

Europe does have a legitimate security and financial interest in Libya. England, Italy, France Spain, Germany get more than 85% of their oil from
Libya.

Since the US insists on remaining involved with the UN, the US could simply have supported a UN resolution allowing the Euro countries to protect their own interests. No US involvement would have been required.

The Arab League wrote early drafts of the resolution that was approved. Every AL country, with the possible exception of Syria, is either dominated by or heavily influenced by Al Ihkwan --- the muslim brotherhood. The AL supports the building of a new caliphate and America is now funding and fighting a war to that end.

Gaddaffi did not "turn on his own citizens" any more than the current US
president would have done if the Tea Party protests got out of control. That Gaddaffi is a bad guy is not in dispute; that he is engaged in a civil
war against "rebels" being armed by Al Ihkwan is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether or not America should interfere in such a civil war and be supporting the terrorists' efforts to topple a secular regime and install a government that takes its orders not from its population but from Allah and the Koran.


Russia's Putin, who - along with China and India - is Gaddaffi's new prospective "partner" in all Libyan oil contracts said this today:

"Muammar Gaddafi's government falls short of democracy, but that does
not justify military intervention."

"The resolution is defective and flawed. It allows everything. It resembles
medieval calls for crusades."

"Interference in other countries' internal affairs has become a trend in US
foreign policy and the events in Libya indicate that Russia should strengthen its own defense capabilities."


Supporters of the current US president's military assaults on Libya are both advancing his caliphate building and pushing America toward WWIII.



30
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Rogermax30 said:
Europe does have a legitimate security and financial interest in Libya. England, Italy, France Spain, Germany get more than 85% of their oil from
Libya

Where did you get that statistic? I doubt it is anywhere close to that. Europe uses a lot of Arabian, Iranian, North Sea, Iraqi and even Russian crude.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Cowpuncher said:
Rogermax30 said:
Europe does have a legitimate security and financial interest in Libya. England, Italy, France Spain, Germany get more than 85% of their oil from
Libya

Where did you get that statistic? I doubt it is anywhere close to that. Europe uses a lot of Arabian, Iranian, North Sea, Iraqi and even Russian crude.

Much like the rest of his post, there is little or no truth in it. Libya exports 85% of it's oil to Europe. The largest importers in Europe are Ireland, Austria, and Italy at around 20% of their total oil imports. And 20% of their oil imports in not necessarily even 20% of their total oil consumption if they produce any of their own.
 
.

I incorrectly stated 85% as the total Euro supply from Libya.

The correct statement is:

85% of Libyan oil currently goes to Europe.

Obviously, since max production from Libya is between
1 - 2 million barrels a day, and Europe uses over 10 -
million barrells a day, Libya could not supply "85%
of Europe's needs."

The European interest is in protecting the share
that they now receive. If Gadaffi remains, Europe
will get NO OIL from Libya. This was announced
before the UN resolution and long before the
US/France/Great Britain attacked Libya.



February 22, 2011

(AP)

Europe gets over 85 percent of Libya's crude exports. The rest goes to Asia, Australia and the U.S. Here's a breakdown of how much oil various countries import from Libya (in barrels per day) and the percentage of a country's total crude imports supplied by Libya.

Italy: 376,000 (22 percent)

France: 205,000 (16 percent)

China: 150,000 (3 percent)

Germany: 144,000 (8 percent)

Spain: 136,000 (12 percent)

United Kingdom: 95,000 (9 percent)

Greece: 63,000 (15 percent)

Austria: 31,000 (21 percent)

Netherlands: 31,000 (2 percent)

Portugal: 27,000 (11 percent)

Switzerland: 17,000 (19 percent)

Ireland: 14,000 (23 percent)

Australia: 11,000. (2 percent)

(Source: International Energy Agency 2010 statistics)


...................


///////////////////////////////////
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So do you think the UN should come up with a resolution for Yemen, Bahrain and Syria too? Who is backing those "rebels"

In Libya, it is a n armed ressurection. Not a peaceful protest like Egypt. Where did they get the weapons?

Many of these "rebels" are not civilians, but Islamic radicals they were either jailed or were oppressed by Kadaffi. The Muslim Brotherhood/Al Ikhwan and al Queda are outlawed in many Middle Eastern Countries, but still exist.

What we are seeing in many of the Countries that are "protesting" at present, is a fight or Jihad. Research the radicals' stated goals and you will know what they are fighting for.

As for the MB,, al qaeda being in Libya and on the side of the "rebels"



Silver said:
Fighting alongside the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Quaeda are we? You and Qadafi must be on the same water system.
As far as I'm concerned, when a nation turns on it's citizens in this fashion the world needs to come to their defense. That's what the U.N. is for and thank God they finally moved in a timely fashion. It's unfortunate that there are so many folks living in the confines of comfort and freedom that have no care and no compassion for those facing what folks like the Libyans are right now.
And yet it was okay to rush to the aid of a kingdom like Kuwait and save the emirats seat of power? Hmmm..... I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, and regardless of my personal thoughts on Obama say that he got this one right.




A statement released Feb. 24 on the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Fajr media website quoted the group known as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) as saying: “We declare our support for the legitimate demands of the Libyan revolution. We assert to our people in Libya that we are with you and will not let you down, God willing. We will give everything we have to support you, with God’s grace.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/


Al—Qaeda has lobbied for Col. Qadhafi’s overthrow and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1558528.ece


Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." 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 and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

According to a cache of al Qaeda documents captured in 2007 by U.S. special operations commandos in Sinjar, Iraq, hundreds of foreign fighters, many of them untrained young Islamic volunteers, poured into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. The documents, called the Sinjar documents, were collected, translated and analyzed at the West Point Counter Terrorism Center. Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, many from the city of Darnah. Others came from Surt and Misurata to the west.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html


Exiled Libyans with connections to Al Qaeda are racing to find ways to send people home, in hope of steering the anti-Gaddafi revolt in a radical Islamist direction, according to several senior Afghan Taliban sources in contact with Al-Qaeda.


Seizing the moment, however, Al Qaeda’s top ranking Libyan, Abu Yahya al-Libi, the movement’s senior Islamist ideologue and bin Laden’s head of operations for Afghanistan, broke his public silence over the Libyan revolt this past weekend. He issued a call to arms to his countrymen in a 30-minute video that was posted on Al Qaeda-linked Internet sites, urging Libyans to fight on and do to Qaddafi what he has done to them over the years: kill him. "Now it is the turn of Qaddafi [to die] after he made the people of Libya suffer for more than 40 years," he said. “Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured." He also called for the institution of Islamic law once an Arab nation has cast off its former, Western-supported rulers. Overthrowing these Western-backed Arab regimes, he added, was "a step to reach the goal of every Muslim, which is to make the word of Allah the highest."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-14/al-qaedas-libya-plans/#


Mar 3rd 2011

Despite this hiccup, the coalition has survived. Representatives of religious foundations tell journalists they want a mainly secular constitution, not one based on the Koran. A leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a global jihadist outfit whose members were let out of prison last year, insist that the organisation, contrary to the colonel’s claim, has no truck with al-Qaeda, nor does it seek an Islamic emirate. Benghazi’s new council includes both Islamists and westernised merchants, and promises elections within six months.

But at prayer times, differences among the celebrants in front of Benghazi’s court-house do emerge. In the front rows a few hundred secular-minded youths cry “Free Libya!” and play Arab pop music over loudspeakers. Behind them, in rows 20 deep, a far bigger crowd chants prayers.

Could a post-Qaddafi Libya reflect a similar division? Based on relationships forged in the notorious Abu Salim prison, a loose Islamist front is emerging. Old-time sheikhs and graduates schooled in Salafi pietism (who seek to emulate the behaviour of the Prophet’s comrades) have teamed up with Muslim Brothers who temper their enthusiasm for sharia law with pragmatism in their dealings with non-Muslim people and governments.

The jihadists take a more rigid line, saying they will tolerate anything—as long as it does not conflict with Islam. Muhammad Busidra, a British-trained doctor freed a year ago after 21 years in Libya’s jails, who calls himself the jihadists’ lawyer, derides the colonel’s claim to be the “liberator of creed and faith” but says his ban on alcohol and cinemas should continue. The Islamists grumbled when an American-trained secular professor was given the education portfolio on the new council. Mr Busidra reassured them that it would please their Western helpers and anyway would not last long.


America has permission to help

So far, both hardline Islamists and secular liberals want the Americans to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, mainly to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from flying reinforcements of African mercenaries to his base in Tripoli. They also want the West to recognise the national council. And both want a quick end to the colonel’s regime. “If we start a guerrilla war, we’ll get help from foreign jihadists, and Libya will be another Afghanistan,” says Mr Busidra, who wants to keep jihadists out. “International opinion should move.” Lawyers, businessmen, Muslim Brothers and former exiles in the national council all say that no measures should be ruled out; the council specifically called on America to raid Colonel Qaddafi’s base in Tripoli.
Explore our interactive map and guide to the Arab League countries

But others disagree. “We’ll stop fighting the tyrant and shoot the Americans instead,” says a veteran of Libya’s war in Chad, who now mans an old anti-aircraft gun on Benghazi’s corniche. Some Islamist leaders say they may face pressure to fight American troops if they became involved. If the liberals were to endorse Western military ground action, they could soon be pilloried as foreign stooges, thus strengthening the Islamists’ hand.

Libyans have a strong jihadist tradition, going back a century to Omar Mukhtar, who conducted a holy war for two decades against the colonising Italians; he lost but remains a heroic unifying symbol. Religious, tribal and nationalist feeling is still strong. More recently, Libyan jihadists have been prominent in Iraq, where, according to a study by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center in 2008, Libyans (nearly all from the eastern part of the country) made up a fifth of foreign jihadists, the second-largest group after the Saudis and the highest per person of any country. Sufian bin Qumu, a rebel leader in Darna, north-east of Benghazi, was once Osama bin Laden’s chauffeur.

http://www.economist.com/node/18290470?story_id=18290470&fsrc=rss


Col Gaddafi has pinpointed the rebels in Dernah as being led by an al-Qaeda cell that has declared the town an Islamic emirate. The regime also casts blame on hundreds of members of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group released since the group renounced violence two years ago.

Although said by the regime to be affiliated to al-Qaeda, most LIFG members have focused only on promoting sharia law in Libya, rejecting a worldwide "jihad".

The man running Dernah's defences, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, was arrested by US forces in Afghanistan in 2002, but says he does not support a Taliban-like state.

The rebels' political leadership there says it is secular.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
And as far as Canada and Harper consulting with Parliament he did. He followed Canadian Laws regarding deployment, unlike obama, who does not have the authority as per thhe Constitution or the War Powers Resolution of 1973


Opposition leaders, who were briefed by Harper before the announcement to deploy the CF-18s, offered support for the deployment. But Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said that support came with conditions.

"I said to [Harper] that I thought it was important for Canada to deploy immediately, but I thought that any combat operations ... must have parliamentary approval and so we will be looking to the government to provide parliamentary authorization as soon as possible for this mission," Ignatieff said Friday in Nanticoke, Ont.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/03/18/pol-harper-libya.html
 

Silver

Well-known member
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
Has it been 48 hours yet?
And if you want to get all constitutional expert on us all, perhaps you could explain why many experts call the War Powers Resolution unconstitional itself. Seems it doesn't matter what ones position is in the US someone can make the argument that it is unconstitutional.

On another note, you can make the argument that Al-Qaeda is in the background in EVERY country waiting to take advantage of a vacuum in power..... including the U.S. Many countries (Egypt for example, and likely Libya) are secular enough not be too troubled by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fact remains that the UN coalition is not fighting a war, they are creating a no fly zone and enforcing it in order to keep civilians from being slaughtered by a crazy dictator. Why does this bother some of you so much? After all, once upon a time there was a revolution in America that could not have been won if not for the intervention of a foreign power. Ironically, a foreign power many Americans look at with much disdain :wink:
 
Hoser kept things "secular."

Those days are over.

........

March 21, 2011 / 6:31PM

Egyptians Approve Constitution with Establishment of Islam as State Religion

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/hahellyer/
4414/egyptians_approve_constitution_with_establishment
_of_islam_as_state_religion/




30
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Silver said:
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
Has it been 48 hours yet?
And if you want to get all constitutional expert on us all, perhaps you could explain why many experts call the War Powers Resolution unconstitional itself. Seems it doesn't matter what ones position is in the US someone can make the argument that it is unconstitutional.

On another note, you can make the argument that Al-Qaeda is in the background in EVERY country waiting to take advantage of a vacuum in power..... including the U.S. Many countries (Egypt for example, and likely Libya) are secular enough not be too troubled by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fact remains that the UN coalition is not fighting a war, they are creating a no fly zone and enforcing it in order to keep civilians from being slaughtered by a crazy dictator. Why does this bother some of you so much? After all, once upon a time there was a revolution in America that could not have been won if not for the intervention of a foreign power. Ironically, a foreign power many Americans look at with much disdain :wink:


The 48 hour reporting period does not give the president the authority to unilaterally send military personel into harm's way. It is just that, an obligation to report, but the President having the authorization to order forces into hostilities still have to meet 1 of the 3 criteria. President obama gave the 48 hour report today.


obama, being the Constitutional scholar that he is, know that he does not have the authority to do this unilaterally.


“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.




War Powers Resolution of 1973

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml




Of course it is the more secular nations that the radical Islamists are fighting for political power in. These "rebellions" are a "jihad" against secular regimes. The "rebels" in Benghazi have said as much. Their goal is to get rid of secular regimes and replace them with an Islamic state.

why are the Saudis in Bahrain, fighting the "rebels"? Why is Syria fighting the "rebels"/ Yemen?

What about all those civilians? Why is the UN not interested? And speaking of "no fly zone".

Why is the Arab League upset at this coalition now? Might it be because they are bombing tanks, foot soldiers, and palaces?


And as far as a war, Gates has already said that a "no fly zone" is war.


Robert Gates, said bluntly that a no-fly zone would amount to an act of war and warned about too much "loose talk" of U.S. military intervention in Libya.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_mideast



The only President to not ask for Congressional approval, before starting an operation of this type, since WWII, and up until obama, was Clinton.

There was lots of time to get the approval, this situation has been going on for a month and at the beginning of March, obama stated that they were looking at all options. that is when he should have asked for approval and then went to the UN.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
rogermax30 said:
Hoser kept things "secular."

Those days are over.

........

March 21, 2011 / 6:31PM

Egyptians Approve Constitution with Establishment of Islam as State Religion

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/hahellyer/
4414/egyptians_approve_constitution_with_establishment
_of_islam_as_state_religion/




30



Would that make them an Islamic State?
 
Top