Hypocrite Obama Doesn't Care One Bit About A Nations Sovereignty.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Q: If Obama is attacking Libya for the Reagan era crimes.... why is he not informing us about it?

Who says that Obama is attacking Libya? He isn't. Who says that the actions currently underway against that country have anything to do with Reagan era crimes? They don't. If you don't know what's going on in Libya, then you should try to figure that out first. I'll give you a hand: 1973

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Who says that Obama is attacking Libya? He isn't. Who says that the actions currently underway against that country have anything to do with Reagan era crimes? They don't. If you don't know what's going on in Libya, then you should try to figure that out first. I'll give you a hand: 1973

ok I missed something here. So why is it again that US planes are bombing Libya ?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Of course is it fair to call him a hypocrite figuring he doesn't care about our own sovereignty either? hmmm....

-----

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110504/pl_afp/usattacksbinladenpakistanobama

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The White House said Wednesday that US President Barack Obama reserves the right to act again against top terror suspects inside Pakistan, following the raid which killed Osama bin Laden.

Obama's spokesman Jay Carney was asked whether the president would be prepared to target fugitives again if they were on Pakistani soil, despite Islamabad's complaints the bin Laden raid was unauthorized and unilateral.

"He made very clear during the campaign that that was his view. He was criticized for it," Carney said.

"He maintained that that was his view and, by the actions he has taken as president, feels that it was the right approach and continues to feel that way," he said.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator Obama said that he would order action against bin Laden or other senior Al-Qaeda leaders inside Pakistan if the country's leadership "is unable or unwilling to act."

Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, accused Obama of effectively threatening an allied nation and said that if a target came into view, "you work with the Pakistani government."

US officials have said that they gave no prior notice to Pakistan before Sunday's daring raid, in which special forces killed the world's most wanted man at a mansion near the country's top military academy in Abbottabad.

CIA director Leon Panetta said that the United States chose not to alert Pakistan of the operation on its soil for fear that officials may have alerted the Al-Qaeda chief.

Pakistan has been on the defensive since Sunday's attack, with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani saying that the United States and other countries shared the blame for not finding bin Laden sooner.

The United States has an uneasy partnership with Pakistan, which supported Afghanistan's hardline Taliban regime until the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al-Qaeda.

Pakistan has often voiced anger at US operations against Al-Qaeda targets on its soil, particularly strikes with unmanned drones which the government says make a mockery of its sovereignty.

The United States carried out more than 100 drone strikes in Pakistan last year, killing more than 670 people, according to an AFP tally.

So Obama says he is willing to go into Pakistan during the campaign...then he does it as President. Uh, that is not the definition of hypocrisy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ok I missed something here. So why is it again that US planes are bombing Libya ?

1973

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

1973

Iv'e read many of your post on here and you come across as a very intelligent person, and last time I checked I wasn't born yesterday. So let's call it for what it is. If the US gave two sh*ts about UN resolutions we wouldn't have backed Israel in regards to Gaza. Russia and China abstained from voting on the Libya thing, and if they US really cared about human rights it would start with dictators in the Western Hemisphere and worked it's way from central Africa over to Belarus.

This is about oil for the EU and nothing else.

btw...why isn't US planes bombing Syria atm ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Iv'e read many of your post on here and you come across as a very intelligent person, and last time I checked I wasn't born yesterday. So let's call it for what it is. If the US gave two sh*ts about UN resolutions we wouldn't have backed Israel in regards to Gaza. Russia and China abstained from voting on the Libya thing, and if they US really cared about human rights it would start with dictators in the Western Hemisphere and worked it's way from central Africa over to Belarus.

This is about oil for the EU and nothing else.

btw...why isn't US planes bombing Syria atm ?

This isn't a UN resolution - UN resolutions are typically hollow and always toothless. It's a Security Council Resolution which the US does give a few sh!ts about. No SC council resolution that the US doesn't want to get passed ever can pass. As a permanent member, the US can - and will - block any SC resolution that it deems against her interest. Same for Russia and China, btw, and also for the UK and France. Why not Syria? Don't know. Perhaps one of the five has made clear that they would not just abstain from voting on but actually veto any resolution against Syria. I really don't know. There may be other geopolitical considerations at play - the impact that any interference in Syria might have on Saudi Arabia, for example. But I really don't know. Haven't looked at it closely. Either way, the EU is in no position to force a SC resolution. Least of all when one non-permanent SC member who is a central part of the EU didn't even vote for the resolution.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This isn't a UN resolution - UN resolutions are typically hollow and always toothless. It's a Security Council Resolution which the US does give a few sh!ts about. No SC council resolution that the US doesn't want to get passed ever can pass. As a permanent member, the US can - and will - block any SC resolution that it deems against her interest. Same for Russia and China, btw, and also for the UK and France. Why not Syria? Don't know. Perhaps one of the five has made clear that they would not just abstain from voting on but actually veto any resolution against Syria. I really don't know. There may be other geopolitical considerations at play - the impact that any interference in Syria might have on Saudi Arabia, for example. But I really don't know. Haven't looked at it closely. Either way, the EU is in no position to force a SC resolution. Least of all when one non-permanent SC member who is a central part of the EU didn't even vote for the resolution.

Syria doesn't have oil. That was an easy one to answer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Syria doesn't have oil. That was an easy one to answer.

That would put you in a tough spot to explain how Ivory Coast made the list of countries to warrant a SC mandate and outside intervention when it has merely 10% of the oil reserves that Syria has? Perhaps it isn't really as easy as you would like to think.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

That would put you in a tough spot to explain how Ivory Coast made the list of countries to warrant a SC mandate and outside intervention when it has merely 10% of the oil reserves that Syria has? Perhaps it isn't really as easy as you would like to think.

Does the US have a military presence in the Ivory Coast ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Does the US have a military presence in the Ivory Coast ?

No. But the US isn't running the show in Libya either. The NATO is under the command of a Canadian general.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

So Obama says he is willing to go into Pakistan during the campaign...then he does it as President. Uh, that is not the definition of hypocrisy.

Not only is it not hypocrisy but the President was given authority to do this under the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force."

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate

force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored

such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism

against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS —

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION — Consistent with section 8(a)(1)

of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to

constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the

War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution

supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Authorization for Use of Military Force

Edited May 6, 2011 by CarlosAndSveta

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not only is it not hypocrisy but the President was given authority to do this under the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001:

Authorization for Use of Military Force

Your use of facts is disturbing. Stop it already.

[Zero Sum 305]

The missiles sent to his home should have tipped you off..... you think that happened without direct instructions from Obama himself?

You can always demand the long form video of the orders you claim that exist. Just to keep things 'honest.'

[Zero Sum 305]

Syria doesn't have oil. That was an easy one to answer.

They actually do have oil.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They actually do have oil.

Apparently.

US warns of more steps against Syria