Due to an ongoing health crisis in the family, blogging will be 'on and off' as time and circumstances permit for the foreseeable future. I also beg your indulgence if I am slow in responding to emails. New posts will appear below this notice.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Qaddafi defies West as attacks on city continue

TRIPOLI, Libya — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi urged President Obama and European leaders on Saturday to hold back from enforcing a no-flight zone over Libya as reports indicated that his forces were continuing to press their attacks against rebels in the east despite warnings from the United States and other Western countries that such moves would provoke military action from the West.

Colonel Qaddafi’s comments, in open letters to President Obama and other leaders that were the Libyan leader’s first public response to the threat from the West, were the latest indication that military confrontation in the skies over Libya may be imminent. And their tone suggested that Colonel Qaddafi was leaving himself little room to back down in order to avoid a clash with the West.

One letter was addressed to Mr. Obama and a second to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” Colonel Qaddafi wrote, according to the government spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.”

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs,” he added.

President Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to a meeting in Paris on Saturday to consult with France, Britain and members of the Arab League on further action. An allied military strike on Libya did not appear imminent as he spoke.

President Obama on Friday ordered Colonel Qaddafi to carry out an immediate cease-fire, withdraw his forces from rebel-held cities and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world.
Read the rest here.

I am absolutely opposed to sticking our nose into this mess. But given that intervention appears to be a done deal, my feeling is let's get this done and over with as quickly as possible. The decision has been made and troops committed. So it's time to take care of business and ring this tin pot dictator's bell. And then let's get the H--- out of there, within a month if possible.

The only thing worse than getting into a war we should not be in, is getting into a war by half measures. Smash him and then go home... QUICKLY.

3 comments:

rabidgandhi said...

The reason why one invests large amounts of money (half of your tax dollars are for "defence") is because one expects a return on one's investment. If the Western Powers are to intervene, expect them only to do so if they can establish long term returns from Libyan resources. This never involves "Getting the H-- out."

Michael said...

I second the above comment:

Read what Anthony Wile says about all of this in "The Daily Bell":

http://www.thedailybell.com/1851/Anthony-Wile-Mid-East-Conflict-Not-Exactly-About-Oil.html

As you (John) have always said, "Banks are the enemy."

Atlanta Roofing said...

A Congressional declaration of war, not merely some alternative in the form of a resolution, ought to be required every time the executive enters into hostilities as a matter of policy—as opposed to instantaneous defense against attack. The wisdom of that Constitutional provision has been demonstrated repeatedly by the blunders it would have prevented if followed.
The current case in Libya may tug at the heart strings now, but will probably seem less sympathetic as events unfold. On what basis does anyone think the result will be better for the U.S. if Khaddafi is deposed now with our help, vs. losing power in a few years by death, mutiny, or some other cause?
Presidents undertake military initiatives because they feel politically pressured to do so. They don’t want to be called weak by political opponents. A better political solution would be to throw the problem back into the lap of the critics, as the Constitution intended.