Page 1 of 10 12345 ... Last
  1. #1
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    US launches military action against Libya

    By Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – 1 hr 34 mins ago

    BRASILIA, Brazil – President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from US and UK ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.

    Obama said military action was not his first choice. "This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

    A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

    Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.

    Earlier in the day, Obama warned that the international community was prepared to act with urgency. "Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency," Obama said.

    Top officials from the U.S., Europe and the Arab world meeting in Paris, where they announced Saturday immediate military action to protect civilians caught in combat between Gadhafi's forces and rebel fighters. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren't participating in the initial French air missions.

    As the military action was announced, French fighter jets swooped over Benghazi, the opposition stronghold that was stormed by Libyan government forces earlier Saturday, in defiance of a proclaimed ceasefire.

    France, Britain and the United States had warned Gadhafi Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.

    The United States has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships.

    The U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the response could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces, a U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations.

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


    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "

    - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007
    hhhmmmmm ....

    ----

    112 missiles and 20 targets!?!?!? at like a billion dollars a missile!?!?!? Its Lybia, can't we just turn their electric off or something ?

    ---

    So when do we establish no-fly zones in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. Why do we get involve in these civil wars? We are their friends when they need us and the Great Satan when things get better.

    When are we going to learn?

    So what is next....Iran? Too bad for the North Korean people, the Sudanese, etc. that they don't have vast supplies of oil then we would be in there helping to "liberate" them too.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement US launches military action against Libya
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Clinton: Fears of Libyan `unspeakable atrocities'
    Matthew Lee, Associated Press – Sat Mar 19, 2:12 pm ET

    PARIS – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the U.S. will bring "unique capabilities to bear" in Libya as a global coalition began enforcing a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

    The world will not "sit idly by," she said at a news conference, amid fears that Gadhafi will commit "unspeakable atrocities" against his people. "We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters after an international conference at which world powers launched enforcement of the no-fly zone.

    Clinton said there was no evidence that Gadhafi's forces were respecting an alleged cease-fire they proclaimed and the time for action was now. "Our assessment is that the aggressive action by Gadhafi's forces continue in many parts of the country," she said. "We have seen no real effort on the part of the Gadhafi forces to abide by a cease-fire."

    "Further delay will only put more civilians at risk," she said. "So let me be very clear on the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce" the no-fly zone and protect Libyan civilians.

    She said that Gadhafi must put the cease-fire into place immediately, stop advancing on the opposition-held city of Benghazi, turn on water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas of the country and reopen hospitals and clinics. She made clear that the U.S. has no intention of sending ground troops into Libya and insisted that the Obama administration was working only in collaboration with the coalition. "We did not lead this, we did not engage in unilateral actions in any way," Clinton said. She emphasized that "we are standing with the people of Libya, and we will not waver."

    Despite U.S. support for the operation, Clinton said the United States had not yet decided on whether to follow France's lead in recognizing an opposition leadership council as the legitimate government of Libya. She said U.S. officials were in constant contact with opposition figures but would wait for developments to play out before deciding how to deal with the council.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_us_lib...ludG9uZmVhcnM-


    Oh really? Atrocities? What about the genocide that has been happening in Darfur for years!? I guess since its Christians dying no one cares. This is a @#$%%ed up world we live in when.

    ---

    That's funny. Saddam Hussein committed "unspeakable atrocities" toward hundreds of thousands of his own people and when Bush took him out he was called a war criminal for it. Hmmmm..............

    --

    Yes they do need help. 100 million is be proposed as a cut to the Pell Grants in the US but we send 10 million to a country in need as emergency funds. What about the need of US students and the emergency that will exist in the US when we become a 3rd world?

    --

    Hope and change most have meant Change locations?

    ---

    Yeah....it reminds me of when Saddam was using WMD against the kurds...gassing whole villages of people, women and children. I still see the pics in my mind. Absolutely horrible. Gadhafi hasn't done anything even near to those atrocities. Yet, Obama is getting a pass on this. I bet when those US missiles kill some civilians there won't be much of an uproar from the media for Obama to be tried as a war criminal like there was against Bush.

    ---

    Different year, different President! Same story.

    ---

    assistance teams = Military.

    Why play word games
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    8,600
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 3,514 Times in 1,965 Posts
    I believe they should stay out of it. Because I bet they'll turn against us then more than him. It will just give people more ammunition against the U.S.

  5. #4
    3lilpigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Somewhere between here and there.
    Posts
    9,764
    Thanks
    6,109
    Thanked 7,862 Times in 4,292 Posts
    Guess I'll go out and fill up my tank, before it hits $5.00 a gallon tomorrow morning.

  6. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    How come the liberals aren't saying that Obama is doing this for the oil? Where are the clips of the protestors with signs proclaiming "Blood = Oil" ? Where is Code Pink ?? I just read that the liberal media has said this is about lowering gasoline prices, and they cheered him for it!!! :shakeshead:
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #6
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    What are the goals and objectives of the US role in the Libya airstrike war?
    Posted by: ST on March 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Tim Carney wonders what many of us are in light of the news over the weekend that the US is “leading” the airstrike campaign against the Libyan military : http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ama-enters-war

    At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.

    Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama’s entry into Libya’s civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama’s announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama’s record of deception.

    “Today, I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya,” the president said. For him it was self-evident he had such authority. He gave no hint he would seek even ex post facto congressional approval. In fact, he never once mentioned Congress.

    Since World War II, the executive branch has steadily grabbed more war powers, and Congress has supinely acquiesced. Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all fought wars without a formal declaration, but at least Bush used force only after Congress authorized it.

    And, once more, the president’s actions belie his words on the campaign trail. In late 2007, candidate Obama told the Boston Globe, “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.”

    There is no claim that Moammar Gadhafi poses a threat to the United States. But asking President Obama to explain his change of heart would be a fruitless exercise. This is a president who has repeatedly shredded the clear meaning of words in order to deny breaking promises he has clearly broken — consider his continued blatant falsehoods on tax increases and his hiring of lobbyists.
    It’s interesting, when you consider how George W. Bush was treated – and still is – by hardcore leftists in the aftermath of the start of the Iraq war, even after we’d had considerable public debate about the issue for a good year or so. He was a “warmonger” who was waging war with Iraq for no reason other than “oil.” According to the left, Saddam “didn’t present a threat” to us, and therefore we had no business going into Iraq. And don’t forget how the left verbally brutalized Bush for allegedly not getting Congressional authorization for the war in Iraq – even though he did. Yet our celebrity President can launch an air war against the Libyan military with little to no public discussion/debate whatsoever, no Congressional vote, with the rationale/goals unclear, and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be ok (update: with a few exceptions, as my co-blogger notes here).

    Ah – I’ve figured this out now, I think. President Obama has the UN’s permission, more or less, and for most on the left, that’s pretty much all that’s necessary – unless we’re talking about a Republican president, and then so much more is needed, like time, debate, Congressional authorization, etc …

    Oh, and didn’t we hear all during the Bush admin on how waging war with Muslim countries only emboldened the terrorists??

    If the word “hypocrite” wasn’t in the dictionary, it wouldn’t be too difficult to offer up ideas to The Powers That Be for what the word should be: Democrat.

    Phineas butts in: For another possible explanation of why Obama changed his mind on Libya, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection offers “wag the dog.” Maybe Obama really is taking Clinton’s advice?

    http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...airstrike-war/

    comments

    One only needs to understand that for the left it is not about moral principals, it is about power. The left only uses the concept of morals and mores as a prop in their grandiose theater. It is similar to liberation theology where Marxist hide their true intent with a cloak which is supposed to resemble righteousness and scratch their heads when bona-fide theologians call them out on their deceptions. So it is the same with regards to war. The left does not care one whit about humanity [just ask Russians in the USSR, Germans under the Nazi's, Chinese under Mao, Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, or any Cuban today.] they only care about their obtainment of power. And warfare is certainly a method to gain such.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #7
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    3/21/2011
    This Illegal War

    Aaron Worthing @ 12:56 pm
    [Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]


    http://patterico.com/2011/03/21/this-illegal-war/

    Update (II): Lindsey Graham demonstrates his constitutional ignorance.

    I glossed over this earlier today, relying on what my high school teacher and the New York Times said about the War Powers Act. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/wo...act-works.html

    But after looking carefully at the Constitution, and the War Powers Act I can only conclude one thing: this war is illegal.

    And let me start by saying that this has nothing to do with whether I support the idea of military action. I do. My chief complaint about this action is that it might be too little, too late. And anyone who followed my twitter would see me say that I believed that we were missing a historic opportunity in our inaction. But it is not enough to do the right thing under our Constitution. We must do the right thing, the right way.

    First, it is a war. When our planes are dropping bombs on enemy armies, what else can one call it? Even if it is unlawful, it is still war.

    And it is not authorized by The War Powers Act which is codified as 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq. Just follow the link and use the “next” link towards the top to browse during the different sections. Section 1541 states that the President can only go to war… http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...1----000-.html

    …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.

    Now I am not one of those kinds of constitutional formalists who says that the declaration of war has to be called a “Declaration of War.” The constitution is about substance and not form and therefore the substance of a Declaration of War is to authorize the creation of a state of war between two nations where none previously existed. A simple authorization to use force, for instance, qualifies.

    But we don’t even have that. Nor can we say that Gdaffy has attacked the U.S., our territories, or even our military, except for the reason that our military is attacking his country and the statute makes it exceedingly clear that this doesn’t count for self-defense purposes.

    So it’s not authorized by the War Power Act. But is it perhaps justified under the Constitution itself?

    It would seem not. First, of course, only Congress has the right to declare war. This appears to be the only way our nation can create a state of war between our nation and another, where none previously existed. We were not at war with Gdaffy before we invaded his territory and the state of war that exists is solely because of that invasion. Again, this isn’t to say it is wrong, but it is being done the wrong way. Congress would have every legal and moral right to declare “sic semper tyrannis!” and declare war on Libya. But the President does not have that legal right.

    For instance, it is not altogether clear that the President could actually wage war on his own accord if we were invaded. The Constitution states that it is a Congressional power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions[.]” Arguably, that is exactly what the War Powers Act was all about. But let us say for the sake of argument that by implication coming from provisions like the Take Care Clause and the fact that the constitution differentiates between the Militia, the Army and the Navy, that maybe the president has the implied power to at least deploy the army and navy in self-defense. But nothing in the Constitution could be stretched to allow for a war of choice in a far-off land, where we were not attacked first.

    And no, the U.N. resolution doesn’t provide justification, either. The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress and no treaty can abrogate that.

    So what do we do? I think we do two things. First, we consider and if appropriate, pass an authorization of force. I wish we would call it a “Declaration of War,” but that is not likely. And then I think Congress should officially Censure Obama, for unlawfully starting a war. I don’t believe impeachment should be on the table, but we should make it clear that if he dares to try this twice, impeachment will follow. The President must be reminded that the decision to go to war is not his, or the United Nations’, but Congress’. To do anything less would risk turning the Declaration of War Clause into a dead letter.

    Hat Tip: Dustin.

    Update: I forgot to add that the Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief himself agreed with me, when auditioning for this job:
    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

    2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    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.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

    As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #8
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    Last night on the news they commented that this "war" was to get rid of Gadhafi and that once gone, the powers would be handed over to the "new" regime....only...they don't know the "new" regime who has no "history" nor do we really know their "intentions" ?


    Tim Carney wonders what many of us are in light of the news over the weekend that the US is “leading” the airstrike campaign against the Libyan military : http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ama-enters-war

    At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.
    What the heck are we doing?

    And please don't tell me what Bush did or how he did it to try and justify this.....especially after Bush was so criticized and crucified by the person who now is doing a 180 himself on all his preachings.

    What a freakin' mess. Arrogance & inexperience once again, hope & change.
    Last edited by pepperpot; 03-22-2011 at 06:46 AM.
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to pepperpot For This Useful Post:

    Jolie Rouge (03-22-2011)

  11. #9
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Dennis Kucinich Wonders Why Missile Strikes Aren’t Impeachable Offenses
    By Doug Powers • March 20, 2011 11:40 AM


    Yesterday, US and British forces launched over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya in an attempt to knock out its air defenses.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...e-consequences


    A group of left-wing House Democrats are fretting about the constitutionality of this military action (military action seems to be about the only time this bunch worries about constitutionality). Rep. Dennis Kucinich — who recently awarded himself the Purple Molar for injuries he sustained single-handedly attempting to thwart an olive pit attack at the congressional cafeteria — is even talking about impeachment:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

    A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

    Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

    Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
    I love the smell of a potential primary challenge in the morning.

    Others on the left who helped carry Obama into office on their shoulders are going apoplectic as well. Michael Moore http://weaselzippers.us/2011/03/19/o...l-peace-prize/ suggested that Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize and compared him to Bush (a charge that will be especially hard for Obama to avoid if he’s going to recycle W’s speeches, http://dougpowers.com/2011/03/19/ano...ted-from-bush/ but at least that might help keep the greens happy). Louis Farrakhan asked Obama “Who the hell do you think you are?” Obama’s even lost Joan Baez, http://www.sify.com/news/legendary-s...srkgbcbdd.html and you know how the old saying goes: If you’ve lost an aging folk singer from the 60′s, you’ve lost… well, not much actually.

    -----

    comments

    Doesn’t that make these representatives racists because they want Obama impeached? If I had said that Obama should be impeached, these four would claim I’m racist.

    ---

    Pfft. Boehner’s disappointing me. He kept talking about “getting the message”, but he’s still playing politics as usual, it seems.
    I am very disappointed (yet again) by the number of so-called constitutional conservatives who think that this is somehow constitutional.

    The Second Amendment is probably the only section that is written with any greater degree of clarity.

    We are not under attack. Libya’s civil war posed no imminent danger to America.

    Picking and choosing which parts of the constitution to read literally is a liberal trick.

    ----

    Another liberal president shreds another clause of the constitution, and the right is all about cheering him on because it upsets the left?

    We are so screwed.

    ---

    I am very disappointed (yet again) by the number of so-called constitutional conservatives who think that this is somehow constitutional.

    December 2007 quote from then-candidate Obama:

    “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.”
    There you have it. The ‘catch’ here, is they are calling this a Humanitarian effort.

    ---

    Is this bho’s “bomb an aspirin factory” moment? What better distraction to use since he’s tanking in the polls and went to Brazil to buy oil, because he won’t allow drilling here. How much more can he muck up?
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Jolie Rouge For This Useful Post:

    pepperpot (03-22-2011)

  13. #10
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    and you know how the old saying goes: If you’ve lost an aging folk singer from the 60′s, you’ve lost… well, not much actually.

    That tickles me....
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  14. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    US jet crashes in Libya; fighting rages in cities
    Ryan Lucas, Associated Press – 18 mins ago

    BU MARIEM, Libya – An American fighter jet crashed in Libya's rebel held east, both crew ejecting safely as the aircraft spun from the sky during the third night of the U.S. and European air campaign. Moammar Gadhafi's forces shelled rebels regrouping in the dunes outside a key eastern city on Tuesday, and his snipers and tanks roamed the last major opposition-held city in the west.

    The crash was the first major loss for the U.S. and European military air campaign, which over three nights appears to have hobbled Gadhafi's air defenses and artillery and rescued the rebels from what appeared to be imminent defeat. But the opposition force, with more enthusiasm than discipline, has struggled to exploit the gains. The international alliance, too, has shown fractures as officials struggle to articulate an endgame.

    China and Russia, which abstained from the U.N. Security Council vote authorizing the international intervention, called for a cease-fire Tuesday from international forces.

    The U.S. Air Force F-15E came down in field of winter wheat and thistles outside the town of Bu Mariem, about 24 miles (38 kilometers) east of the rebel capital of Benghazi.

    By Tuesday afternoon, the plane's body was mostly burned to ash, with only the wings and tail fins intact. U.S. officials say both crewmembers were safe in American hands.

    "I saw the plane spinning round and round as it came down," said Mahdi Amrani, who rushed to the crash site with other villagers. "It was in flames. They died away, then it burst in to flames again."

    The U.S. Africa Command said both crewmembers were in American hands with minor injuries after what was believed to be a mechanical failure of the on Monday night. One was picked up by a rebel force and the other by a Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft.

    Most of eastern Libya, where the plane crashed, is in rebel hands but the force has struggled to take advantage of the gains from the international air campaign.

    Ajdabiya, city of 140,000 that is the gateway to the east, has been under siege for a week. Outside the city, a ragtag band of hundreds of fighters milled about on Tuesday, clutching mortars, grenades and assault rifles. Some wore khaki fatigues. One man sported a bright white studded belt.

    Some men clambered up power lines in the rolling sand dunes of the desert, squinting as they tried to see Gadhafi's forces inside the city. The group periodically came under artillery attacks, some men scattering and others holding their ground.

    "Gadhafi is killing civilians inside Ajdabiya," said Khaled Hamid, a rebel who said he been in Gadhafi's forces but defected to the rebels. "Today we will enter Ajdabiya, God willing."

    Since the uprising began on Feb. 15, the opposition has been made up of disparate groups even as it took control of the entire east of the country. Regular army units that joined the rebellion have proven stronger and more organized, but only a few units have joined the battles while many have stayed behind as officers try to coordinate a force with often antiquated, limited equipment.

    The rebels pushed into the west of the country in recent weeks, only to fall back to their eastern strongholds in the face of Gadhafi's superior firepower.

    Misrata, Libya's third-largest city and the last major western redoubt for the rebels, was being bombarded by Gadhafi's forces on Tuesday, his tanks and snipers controlling the streets, according to a doctor there who said civilians were surviving on dwindling supplies of food and water, desperately in search of shelter.

    Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals if the city falls to Gadhafi's troops, he accused international forces of failing to protect civilians as promised under the United Nations resolution authorizing military action in Libya.

    "Snipers are everywhere in Misrata, shooting anyone who walks by while the world is still watching," he said. "The situation is going from bad to worse. We can do nothing but wait. Sometimes we depend on one meal per day."

    Mokhtar Ali, a Libyan dissident in exile elsewhere in the Mideast, said he was in touch with his father in Misrata and described increasingly dire conditions.

    "Residents live on canned food and rainwater tanks," Ali said. He said Gadhafi's brigades storm residential areas knowing that they won't be bombed there. "People live in total darkness in terms of communications and electricity."

    Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment. But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi's troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others said the U.S. military's role will lessen in coming days as other countries take on more missions and the need declines for large-scale offensive action like the barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired mainly by U.S. ships and submarines off Libya's coast.

    A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss classified data, said Monday that the attacks thus far had reduced Libya's air defense capabilities by more than 50 percent. That has enabled the coalition to focus more on extending the no-fly zone, which is now mainly over the coastal waters off Libya and around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east, across the country to the Tripoli area this week.

    In his first public comments on the crisis, Army Gen. Carter Ham, the lead U.S. commander, said it was possible that Gadhafi might retain power.

    "I don't think anyone would say that is ideal," the general said Monday, foreseeing a possible outcome that stands in contrast to President Barack Obama's declaration that Gadhafi must go.

    The Libyan leader has ruled the North African nation for more than four decades and was a target of American air attacks in 1986.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya;...lieWFyZWJlbHNz
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in