U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles (Libya)

~Jennifer - posted on 03/19/2011 ( 32 moms have responded )

4,164

61

369

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/...


The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.

The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi's air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.

Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Qaddafi, the U.S. was poised to kick off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Qaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities," Clinton said.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement -- at least in the initial stages -- to helping protect French and other air missions.............
(read more @ link above)

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Sharon - posted on 03/19/2011

11,585

12

1315

Eh - better cruise missiles and no troops. And for the same reason we can't sit by and watch a woman beat her kid in walmart without crying foul and 9-1-1.

Johnny - posted on 03/19/2011

8,686

26

322

Do I think that the US went into Iraq partly because of oil, yes. It has the second highest amount in worldwide reserves, at 14.5%.

The US virtually controls the top 3 countries with the largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Canada. All of those countries oil profits and generation are beholden to the US. There is no need for them to invade and control Libya which holds around 3% of world wide reserves.

I think that it was becoming impossible to sit back and wait for him to get into Benghazi and massacre the entire city. Which is what is happening to other towns and it will be horrific if he ever gets in there. While it is rather hypocritical of the nations involved to take action in Libya and not in Cote D'Ivoire, Yemen, Bahrain, Congo, Darfur, and many others, at least they are trying to do something somewhere. Libya was a place that the international community could generally agree on. And you can see how difficult even that was. It would be impossible to get a consensus on action in most of the other countries.

As for Yemen, it is in the US interest to prop up their rather weak government because it they do not, it risks becoming another Somalia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. It's not a nice thing, but a bunch of urban, wealthy, westernized university students from the main cities are unlikely to be able to control a rather lawless, tribal large country if they were to succeed in overthrowing the government.

Tara - posted on 03/20/2011

2,567

14

114

An estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens have died since the US invaded Iraq.
I disagree that this is a good solution to the issues in Libya.
I believe that there are going to be a large number of civilians that will die as a result of the the Allied strikes, I think this is a HUGE mistake for Obama to go along with.
I really believe that the people of Libya want out from under the rule of Ghadafi, however, I don't think they are wanting nor asking for American style democracy, I don't think they are sure what they truly need or want in the way of a solution. I think they feel left out of the loop, they feel that there is a divide within the Arab League, those pro-western democracy, ready to jump on the boat, they see the potential and lure of money and capitalism holds hands with democracy in their eyes.
Then there are those in the League who hold onto their own style and view on democracy, not willing to fully embrace the ideology but willing to form their own style of it.
Libya needs the advice of other Arab countries facing or having faced similar issues, they should not be simply ready to hand over their system, their futures to the governments of the Allied Strike against them.
Doing so opens their country up to more problems than they would ever dream.
Forcing sanctions on this country will leave millions of children without food, medical care and a future that has any stability at all.
There have to be solutions in place before they decide to overthrow a government, and to me the only people who will be making any changes are not those who live in Libya, it will be those who want to own Libya's natural resources and exploit their populace, all in the name of bringing freedom and democracy to yet another "Backward, oppressive arab nation."
I'll be following this closely to see what happens, I have some predictions it would be nice if they don't come true though.

Carolyn - posted on 03/19/2011

898

19

140

" why oh why do we stick our noses into business that isn't ours."

-oil

nough said.

32 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

LESA i agree 100%.I hope it ends the news footage is heartbreaking.It makes me very grateful for the country i was born into.Those innocent people its awful.

Brandi - posted on 03/20/2011

406

40

5

I am not sure how I feel about this... BUT, I will say that if I was one of those innocent civilians and my innocent family was being killed, I would want someone to help me. So, I kinda see the point. I also see the point of it being about the oil.. Maybe it is, but still. I feel for people in countries like that. Their leaders don't give 2 shits about them. Sad, it really is.

Tara - posted on 03/20/2011

2,567

14

114

Yes but who profits from the sale of the tools of war?
The US is the biggest seller in the Arms Trade. An estimated 166.7 Billion dollars have been made by private US Arms dealers from 02-09. Who buys these weapons from these private corporations? The US military and then the US military negotiates contracts in other countries for the sale of armaments made by the companies who hire lobbyists to lobby government to facilitate these sales.
The money trail doesn't lie.
It may have the offshoot of appearing or genuinely assisting another government or another populace but really the winners are the elite who benefit from war.
The sheer volume of Arms trades going on in the US speaks to a real tangible need for war to continue, without war and controversy one of the biggest industries would crumble. Much like what socialized medicine would do to the current Insurance industry in the US.

Johnny - posted on 03/20/2011

8,686

26

322

So what exactly did the allies have to gain in Serbia when the no-fly zone was enacted there? There isn't any oil or particular commercial interests? Sometimes, although not often, governments will actually do things for the right reasons. It remains to be seen if this was the right thing to actually do. But while I usually doubt their motivations, in this case, I think much of it was to prevent a humanitarian disaster. The French government also has the added motivation of pleasing its own large population of North African immigrants who hate Gaddafi.

Lesa - posted on 03/20/2011

150

6

6

The citizens of Libya are standing in protest for a free and democratic country and hoping someone will help them. How could the world's leader in democracy stand by and do nothing. They need to protect their belief in freedom.

Tara - posted on 03/20/2011

2,567

14

114

It's an allied strike based on an emergency meeting in Paris, the allied strike is between the US, UK and France. Many countries opposed the use of force in this instance.
They may not have been the first and they may not be "leading" it, but if you follow the money trail you will end up back in the good old US, but not in the governments pocket, they only do the bidding of the lobbyist who work for or worked for the corporate elite. They are the ones who will benefit from this strike.

Tara - posted on 03/20/2011

2,567

14

114

@Jennifer, they ALWAYS have their own agenda.
If they are truly concerned with human rights and saving lives abroad. then why are they not heading to Darfur?? Why? Because they rely on the Sudanese government for intel about Darfur, they have nothing to gain from going in and ending conflict and have a vested monetary interest in the ongoing conflicts.
The US does not care about anyone but themselves. Anytime they reach their military arm across the globe and "help" another country, there is ALWAYS a monetary incentive. WAR brings the GDP up in the states, just like sickness does, and as long as the GDP is up and warring remains good for the economic health of the corporate elite, as long as war pumps money from the feds into the pockets of the billionaires that own the companies that produce armaments for the US military, WAR will continue to be one of the most lucrative businesses for private sector elites.
The US economy might be in trouble, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter to the multi-national corporations who are making millions every day off the US's wars.
War is great for the Rockefellars, the Vanderbilts and the rest of the elite that has been powering American Style politics sine the beginning of the Federal Reserve Bank's inception.

Jenni - posted on 03/20/2011

5,928

34

393

I just have a hard time believing that a country with a highly capitalistic agenda doesn't have an alterior motive. Doesn't use "Freedom for All" as a scapegoat. Has suddenly turned humanitarian when they completely lack humanity for their own citizens.
In the midst of a recession when the US is in tons of debt and needs to be concentrating on their homeland's security (not just protection, but financial security). They would be "wasting" dollars on saving human life when they could care less about the well-being of their own citizens.
Although, I could see the possibility of having some good will in the attack on the dictator. A cruise missle costs approx. $500 000 US. Which is chump change. Not like the multi-trillion dollar wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean really? logically? who spends that kind of money in the name of freedom for another country and its people. Scapegoat. The US has it's own agenda.

Carolyn - posted on 03/19/2011

898

19

140

thats because after the mess in Iraq and going in against the UN, they figured out a way to accomplish their own agenda with a good cover story .... seems Obama is smarter than Bush ;)

Dana - posted on 03/19/2011

11,264

35

495

It's funny how the US goes about this so they (we) can't be accused of "sticking their nose in other places" or "because of oil" yet that's the first thing that's being said.

I don't believe it's about oil. I think it's about coming together with other nations (and waiting until Arab nations agreed) and saying it's just not right, plain and simple. There is no ulterior motive.

Jodi - posted on 03/19/2011

3,562

36

3907

Yep, I'm on the oil bandwagon too. I believed that when the US interfered in Iraq and I believe it now. It's called protecting ones own interests.

♏*PHOENIX*♏ - posted on 03/19/2011

4,455

6

402

You said it Exactly Becky They have OIL…
They (US/ Britian barely helping other countries), and yet first chance they jumps to “Save” Libya….

Becky - posted on 03/19/2011

2,892

44

93

I don't watch Fox either. Except the Simpsons! :) For the record, I do support the intervention in Libya. Ghadafi is a tyrent and has been terrrorizing not only the people of Libya, but of other west African countries for far too long. He needs to go, no question. But, you have to wonder, when equally horrible, or worse, things are happening in other countries, like Darfur, Cote d'Ivoire, Congo... (I worked with a refugee from the Congo and the stories she told of what she'd seen were heartbreaking. She was 14.) and nobody's doing anything. There's no outcry. There's hardly any news coverage. It seems the only ones who care are those of us who have some connection. So why is it that some countries get the international attention and others don't? Libya is a big producer of oil....

~Jennifer - posted on 03/19/2011

4,164

61

369

I don't watch fox...i just check there when I want sensational 'war coverage'.

(actually, I watch all of the news stations, at different times of the day)

Carolyn - posted on 03/19/2011

898

19

140

there is shit happening across the world and people are keeping their nose out it. Until it comes to a mass producer of oil.

Becky - posted on 03/19/2011

2,892

44

93

I'm going to have to agree with Carolyn on this one! Equal atrocities are happen in Cote d'Ivoire, but no one is rushing in there. Oh yeah, they have no oil.
But they do produce over 50% of the world's chocolate.... women really need to be pushing the UN etc to get involved there or we may be SOL!

Sharon - posted on 03/19/2011

11,585

12

1315

i would support a push into darfur and the congo!! those rebel terrorist assholes deserve some comeuppance!!

sure its feasible but the US won't take the extra step. Instead of charging for our liberating forces, we virtually donate their time, gear and lives. If we charged for those, like mercenaries forces or better yet, world police force - our country would have less debt.

Rosie - posted on 03/19/2011

8,657

30

321

i have sympathy i really do, but why aren't we attacking darfur, and congo, and all the other places in this world where atrocities are happening? it just isn't feasable!

Rosie - posted on 03/19/2011

8,657

30

321

i hate this. why oh why do we stick our noses into business that isn't ours. can't we wait till one war is over before we start another one? or even better yet, can't we just get the fuck out of the middle east and worry about all the shit that is wrong with our country before we go "fix" others. FFS. yes i know other countries are involved in this too, but my god.

Sharon - posted on 03/19/2011

11,585

12

1315

why can't we just get snipers in there to eradicate his smelly old ass?

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms