http://nationalinterest.org/feature/hill...ster-16600

"Prior to the February 17, 2011, “Day of Rage,” Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent. Following the revolution, the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent, with a national deficit of 17.1 percent GDP in 2011.

Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war. (there is her GOOD judgment she want to carry into the oval office)

Within weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi’s abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton. Internal communications that went public last year revealed that on March 18, 2011, a colonel in JCS wrote, “. . . Due to the UNSCR, Libyan forces sped up ops to get to Benghazi, and will soon cease fire. As expected. Our contact will arrange a face-to-face meeting with Saif, or a skype/video-telecon to open communications if time does not permit. It will have to be with a high level USG official for him to agree. If there will be an ultimatum before any ops, the USG must be in communication with the right leaders and hopefully listen for any answer. A peaceful solution is still possible that keeps Saif on our side without any bloodshed in Benghazi.” However, on March 14, 2011 Secretary Clinton had already met with rebel leaders in Paris, including Mahmoud Jibril, number two in the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, and had committed to support their revolution. (and she wants to be POTUS)

you meant labia.....

just admit it....

Libya is a catastrophe.

The fact Hillary can sleep at night over it astounds me. Her and her friends have caused untold amounts of misery.

This is over the heads of the Libtards. They rather blather on about assault weapons while dozens or even hundreds of Syrian ISIS or ISIS sympathizers enter under Obama's program to grow the Democratic Party.

Let's see which liberal is going to blame Bush...


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

Won't matter. You have to have a candidate able to prosecute the argument.

(06-16-2016 08:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  This is over the heads of the Libtards. They rather blather on about assault weapons while dozens or even hundreds of Syrian ISIS or ISIS sympathizers enter under Obama's program to grow the Democratic Party.

'tards only understand the gift that keeps on giving.....

'they' are beginning to wake up.....

'they' better hope it happens quickly....

if not, it with then become the zen for dem.....and everyone else....

(06-16-2016 08:25 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Let's see which liberal is going to blame Bush...


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

Why RedTom of course. BBS (Blame Bush Syndrome) is definitely in his wheelhouse.

Do you think HRC should have

1) Gotten us into a ground war in a country with no good guys, no solution, no exit plan, and NO STRONG AMERICAN strategic interest

2) Propped up a terrorist like Qaddafi, who murdered hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks from Beirut to Lockerbie.

---

What we did, was make the French and Italians do the heavy lifting. And then left.

What Trump did....is just BIZARRE...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-wanted-moammar-gaddafis-money/

(06-16-2016 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Do you think HRC should have

1) Gotten us into a ground war in a country with no good guys, no solution, no exit plan, and NO STRONG AMERICAN strategic interest

2) Propped up a terrorist like Qaddafi, who murdered hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks from Beirut to Lockerbie.

---

What we did, was make the French and Italians do the heavy lifting. And then left.

What Trump did....is just BIZARRE...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-wanted-moammar-gaddafis-money/

She has no judgement. Sounds like she was largely responsible for Libya being the mess it is today by trying to select Libya's leadership. And so we do have ground troops (special forces) in Libya today. It is true she didn't want to put troops in to protect our consulate and let our ambassador and others get murdered.

She did vote for Iraq.

She has basically let Assad do what he wanted in Syria with a JV effort to create a Democratic army in Syria.

And she did leave ISIS terrorists in control in vast parts of Syria, Iraq and Libya with a base for terrorizing California and Florida.

Let's not lose sight of who her close "advisor" was for this either. Sid "precious" Blumenthal. That invariable loser. With, of course, his top secret clearance and long standing position as clintoon henchman and dirt digger. This is her "trusted" friend and advisor. Do the google on this a-hole, right up there with that naked fraud david brock.

This is easily the most corrupt person to ever win (maybe) the nomination of one of our 2 major party's to be President. It's not just embarrassing, it's downright disturbing.

(06-17-2016 12:35 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This is easily the most corrupt person to ever win (maybe) the nomination of one of our 2 major party's to be President. It's not just embarrassing, it's downright disturbing.

She's still better than Bernie.

(06-17-2016 06:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 12:35 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This is easily the most corrupt person to ever win (maybe) the nomination of one of our 2 major party's to be President. It's not just embarrassing, it's downright disturbing.

She's still better than Bernie.

shite only yields shite....doesn't matter how one wipes it...

but we get what you're saying....

I'm with JMU.....it's downright disturbing....

and I'm okay with your libertarian vote....only b/c you live in Tejas....

one day, that will change in both our states.....and I can only hope I'll be fishing in Costa at that point when the sun finally sets....

(06-17-2016 06:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 12:35 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This is easily the most corrupt person to ever win (maybe) the nomination of one of our 2 major party's to be President. It's not just embarrassing, it's downright disturbing.

She's still better than Bernie.

eh, is she? Bernie would never get anything he campaigned on passed.

This is essentially what Bernie's state of the Union Addresses would amount to:

(06-16-2016 07:03 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you meant labia.....

just admit it....

"hillary's huge labia disaster?" holy crap, dude. thanks a lot. I'll need a lobotomy to get that image scrubbed from my subconscious.

(06-16-2016 11:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Do you think HRC should have

1) Gotten us into a ground war in a country with no good guys, no solution, no exit plan, and NO STRONG AMERICAN strategic interest

2) Propped up a terrorist like Qaddafi, who murdered hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks from Beirut to Lockerbie.

---

What we did, was make the French and Italians do the heavy lifting. And then left.

What Trump did....is just BIZARRE...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-wanted-moammar-gaddafis-money/

She has no judgement. Sounds like she was largely responsible for Libya being the mess it is today by trying to select Libya's leadership. And so we do have ground troops (special forces) in Libya today. It is true she didn't want to put troops in to protect our consulate and let our ambassador and others get murdered.

She did vote for Iraq.

She has basically let Assad do what he wanted in Syria with a JV effort to create a Democratic army in Syria.

And she did leave ISIS terrorists in control in vast parts of Syria, Iraq and Libya with a base for terrorizing California and Florida.

Actually, she DIDN'T try to choose Libya's leadership. Because there aren't ANY good players. Besides if we did try and pick leadership, we'd be responsible for propping it up. At great expense. And with no exit plan at all. No thanks. Let the Europeans, who actually DO have a dog in this hunt deal with it.

So what would you have done in Libya? What about Syria? Chew up 10,000 American lives and another Trillion bucks so that we can trade a secular terrorist despot for an Islamic terrorist despot? No thanks.

(06-17-2016 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So what would you have done in Libya? What about Syria? Chew up 10,000 American lives and another Trillion bucks so that we can trade a secular terrorist despot for an Islamic terrorist despot? No thanks.

Leave it alone. The best guy to run the country was probably the one we overthrew. Same for Iraq, I'm going to be an equal opportunity critic here.

Maybe not Egypt, but the armed forces were going to topple him anyway, and they'd be pretty much where they are today, without the MB interlude.

With Saddam gone, the best folks to run western Iraq (and eastern Syria) are probably ISIS. That's not because ISIS is any good, that's just because of the lack of other viable options. Western Iraq and eastern Syria are majority Sunni portions of countries where the governments are dominated by Shias (Alewite, sect of Shia, in Syria). They should probably be broken off from Iraq and Syria, respectively, and set up as an independent country. Had San Remo gone differently, that might have happened. But it didn't, so it didn't.

The one time Joe Biden and I have agreed is that what constitutes Iraq should be broken up into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, Shia Mesopotamia, and Sunni Iraq to the west. And eastern Syria probably needs to break off and join Sunni western Iraq. One huge problem (actually two), that resulting country has 1) no water, and 2) no oil. So they are going to need a lot of help economically.

At the time Qaddafi was being overthrown, I remember saying on here that the way it was being done (cooperation with Europe) was the way to do it if it needed doing, but that I wasn't sure it needed doing. Had I been privy to more intel than I am now, I'm guessing I would have concluded that it most definitely did not need doing. One good rule in international relations, among other endeavors, is don't abandon Plan A until you know what Plan B is. We abandoned Plan A in Iran (Shah), Iraq (Saddam), Egypt (Mubarak), Libya (Qaddafi), without knowing what Plan B was in any of them. That is a huge mistake.

In my thoughts on military, one idea that appeals to me is a high/low mix of aircraft carriers, where we have about half the carrier fleet as large Ford equivalents (although I would reject some elements of Ford as simply unworkable, and never build another carrier with them, at least not until Ford completely works out the kinks). The other half I would like to see as some kind of hybrid with both cats and a ski jump, that could operate a mix of both CATOBAR (catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery) and STOL/STOBAR (short take-off and landing/short take-off but arrested recovery). It's a little tricky to get the flight deck laid out right, but such a ship would have one big appeal in that it could multiply force by operating effectively with other navies that had either a CATOBAR carrier (France), or STOL/STOBAR carriers (RN, India, Italy, Australia, Spain). I mention that here, because in the context of y comment about the way to do an operation, this kind of ship would greatly facilitate more varied options.

I don't really like the way the navy is bastardizing the LHA/LHD's into smaller carriers. Do we want them to be amphibs or carriers? And as amphibs, aren't we risking putting far too many eggs in one basket, not to mention pretty much limiting ourselves to one ship-to-shore method? I'd phase out the behemoth LHA/LHD's at the ends of their various service lives (no need to spend gobs of money before then), and replace them with something smaller like Spain or Australia are building, along with an LPH like the Korean Dokdo or French Mistrals. Keep the LSD/LPDs, and build some real LSTs. Amphibious ops are a curious lot, with many unexpected twists. Having more different types of ships, with more ways to deliver Marines to the objective, will stand us in really good stead as future situations develop.