Libya coalition falling apart, Germany pulls out...

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

[coyotes_geek]

I didn't think Germany was ever in. Didn't they abstain on the NFZ vote?

[Drachen]

I didn't think Germany was ever in. Didn't they abstain on the NFZ vote?

Yes.

[CosmicCowboy]

They had two ships and some AWAC's participating.

[SnakeBoy]

The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone. Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.

:lol

[hater]

Germany was never in it :lol

what's next? Russia and China pull out?

[symple19]

another dumbass thread by CC

[hater]

Why coulnt' Obama do like Bush and keep his coalition intact, I never heard of Palau or El Salvador bailing out when we attacked Iraq.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.

We have people who criticize him for not showing leadership to get kaddafi out.. yet also proclaim that we don't need another war to fight..

So he then gathers a coalition to assist with the matter, gets the UN to buy in ..all the while keeping US involvement to a minimum..and he is called out for taking a pre planned trip even though his staying or going wouldn't affect the action in the least..


Now he is being criticized for vascilliating..


guy can't win.. so he must be something right...

[vy65]

So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.

We have people who criticize him for not showing leadership to get kaddafi out.. yet also proclaim that we don't need another war to fight..

So he then gathers a coalition to assist with the matter, gets the UN to buy in ..all the while keeping US involvement to a minimum..and he is called out for taking a pre planned trip even though his staying or going wouldn't affect the action in the least..


Now he is being criticized for vasciliating..


guy can't win.. so he must be something right...


taxpayer dollars and the new imperialism my brother . . .

[coyotes_geek]

So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.

We have people who criticize him for not showing leadership to get kaddafi out.. yet also proclaim that we don't need another war to fight..

So he then gathers a coalition to assist with the matter, gets the UN to buy in ..all the while keeping US involvement to a minimum..and he is called out for taking a pre planned trip even though his staying or going wouldn't affect the action in the least..


Now he is being criticized for vascilliating..


guy can't win.. so he must be something right...

Wow George, did you come up with this amazing observation that not all people think the same way all by yourself, or did you have help?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow George, did you come up with this amazing observation that not all people think the same way all by yourself, or did you have help?

I just like to point out the hypocrisy of those criticizing him.. did you catch that? Obviously not..

[CosmicCowboy]

You stupid fucks.

I didn't say anything about Obama.

I posted a fucking article from a credible news source.

Shitheads

[coyotes_geek]

I just like to point out the hypocrisy of those criticizing him.. did you catch that? Obviously not..

And of course in your quest to point out hypocracy you took the time to confirm that the people who are criticizing Obama for not doing enough to take out Gaddafi are the same ones who are also criticizing Obama for getting us involved in another conflict we don't need to fight. There's no chance whatsoever that those dual criticisms might be originating from separate groups of people. Right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And of course in your quest to point out hypocracy you took the time to confirm that the people who are criticizing Obama for not doing enough to take out Gaddafi are the same ones who are also criticizing Obama for getting us involved in another conflict we don't need to fight. There's no chance whatsoever that those dual criticisms might be originating from separate groups of people. Right?

Of course, do you think there's a chance that they could be originating from the same group of people?

[coyotes_geek]

Of course, do you think there's a chance that they could be originating from the same group of people?

Just for grins, I'll say "no" and wait for you to prove me wrong, what with you having done the research and all.

[Wild Cobra]

another dumbass thread by CC
Seems to me a good one. This coalition will not last as well as our efforts in Iraq. The motives were all wrong and worse on the information.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just for grins, I'll say "no" and wait for you to prove me wrong, what with you having done the research and all.


Still, Hannity argued that waiting for international law caused the deaths of many. “People got slaughtered while [President Obama] dithered with his brackets,”



HANNITY: He said the following, he said, "Qaddafi must go." That him remaining in power is unacceptable. So, here's my question, what if they are not successful? What does that mean in terms of emboldening enemies, two-bit dictators with third-rate militaries, if Qaddafi can seemingly beat down France, Great Britain and the United States of America because they -- they haven't defined what success is, he hasn't gone full bore into this, he's telegraphing no boots on the ground. Go ahead.


Took me about 2 minutes..

need more?

[hater]

Seems to me a good one. This coalition will not last as well as our efforts in Iraq. The motives were all wrong and worse on the information.

Yes, Bush kept the coalition intact.
Brave and proud countries like:
Honduras
El Salvador
Poland
Moldova
Singapore
Domincan Republic
Nicaragua
Mongolia

that's a dream team of a coalition tbh

[hater]

I posted a fucking article from a credible news source.


without even checking that Germany was not part of it to start with

[George Gervin's Afro]

Seems to me a good one. This coalition will not last as well as our efforts in Iraq. The motives were all wrong and worse on the information.

didn't we bear 90+ % of the costs in money and lives? That coalition..the one where only 2 or 3 countries provided boots on the ground?

Why wasn't Bush able to get our allies to put more boots on the ground?

[coyotes_geek]

Took me about 2 minutes..

need more?

Great. Hannity thinks we should have done something sooner. Now find a Hannity quote saying we shouldn't have gone in at all and you'll have successfully found one person to support your claim.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Great. Hannity thinks we should have done something sooner. Now find a Hannity quote saying we shouldn't have gone in at all and you'll have successfully found one person to support your claim.


So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.


you are wrong..

need more?



Colonel, I frankly don't care what Putin thinks or China thinks or anybody else thinks. But I am concerned that a president and an administration, if you really look at this here, you know, what is now the new criteria for intervention? The president said this weekend that, well, in Rio, you know, people's lives are in jeopardy. How do we define success here?

He manages to bash for not getting in sooner, to then criticize the post action plan, to then question his criteria for going in...

[coyotes_geek]

you are wrong..

need more?

Yes. You've found one person. A braindead idealogue at that. People = >1 person.

Also, if you want to go ahead and explain how criticizing Obama for not having a plan is directly in conflict with criticizing Obama for not doing something sooner, that would be nice too.

[Wild Cobra]

didn't we bear 90+ % of the costs in money and lives? That coalition..the one where only 2 or 3 countries provided boots on the ground?

Why wasn't Bush able to get our allies to put more boots on the ground?
You don't think we are bearing most the cost of this one? Probably 90%+ also.

How many other nations sent cruise missiles at $1,066,465 each?

Who pays the majority funding of the UN?

Why are we backing the same people that Al-Qada is backing?

[ElNono]

Seems to me a good one. This coalition will not last as well as our efforts in Iraq. The motives were all wrong and worse on the information.

Says who, you?

Germany was not part of the coalition in Lybia, you can hardly lose what you don't have.

This coalition is much stronger than the one that invaded Iraq. Furthermore, we lost support from pretty big coalition members while in Iraq (ie: Spain, who is a NATO member).

[Wild Cobra]

Says who, you?

Germany was not part of the coalition in Lybia, you can hardly lose what you don't have.

This coalition is much stronger than the one that invaded Iraq. Furthermore, we lost support from pretty big coalition members while in Iraq (ie: Spain, who is a NATO member).
If true, why the chatter about handing this problem off to NATO?

[hater]

It's true they are having some arguments on who takes the lead. But you are gonna have arguments when you involve the French and Italians. IMO this will be solved, you can't make a pizza without an Italian complaining.

Just italians being italians. Much ado about nothing.

[Halberto]

Wild Cobra, the Republican troll of the political forum.


lol he never even acknowledges that the article is centered around false information

[coyotes_geek]

It's true they are having some arguments on who takes the lead. But you are gonna have arguments when you involve the French and Italians. IMO this will be solved, you can't make a pizza without an Italian complaining.

Just italians being italians. Much ado about nothing.

I wouldn't say it's much to do about nothing. According to the story MB linked in his thread about the coalition of the unwilling, it takes a unanimous vote by all 28 NATO nations for NATO to take over. France is against it, Italy is against it and Turkey is against it.

[MannyIsGod]

"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is."

-- Newt Gingrich on March 7 explaining what he would do in Libya.

"Let me draw the distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces."

-- Newt Gingrich, earlier today.


So sad no one holds these guys accountable anymore. They basically say anything and it doesn't even matter. Such a joke.

[coyotes_geek]

Okay GGA, you were right.

Newt and Hannity are idiots. They deserve to be called out.

[ElNono]

If true, why the chatter about handing this problem off to NATO?

The reason is not that there's a lack of leadership, but that there's actually too many countries wanting to take the role. They'll sort it out.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ man, just STOP.


Gingrich Keeps Trying
"There's almost a conspiracy of silence, if it's an anti-American government. If you're the Iranians, if you are the Libyans, for that matter, if you're the Chinese, you are able to suppress your people and the American government stays quiet."

-- Newt Gingrich, on Fox News on Feb. 22, explaining why the Obama administration was weak on Libya.

"Prior to March 3, I would have strongly recommended an Eisenhower-Reagan model... you should have said nothing. Be very quiet. Condemn the violence. Do everything you can covertly."

-- Gingrich, quoted by the Washington Post today on Libya. Hat tip: Dave Weigel.

[Stringer_Bell]

Jesus Christ man, just STOP.


Gingrich Keeps Trying
"There's almost a conspiracy of silence, if it's an anti-American government. If you're the Iranians, if you are the Libyans, for that matter, if you're the Chinese, you are able to suppress your people and the American government stays quiet."

-- Newt Gingrich, on Fox News on Feb. 22, explaining why the Obama administration was weak on Libya.

"Prior to March 3, I would have strongly recommended an Eisenhower-Reagan model... you should have said nothing. Be very quiet. Condemn the violence. Do everything you can covertly."

-- Gingrich, quoted by the Washington Post today on Libya. Hat tip: Dave Weigel.

Newt is a genius, tbh. He says what he needs to say to the Fox News crowd AND the Washington Post crowd. He's simply being a good politician who knows his audience. Quit hating.

I think the more important issue here is that Obama/France's Libya Coalition is not nearly as amazing as the Coalition of the Willing that Bush put together.