America war against Libya

[Thankful 1]

That's " therefore the world hateth you." not withdraw from the world. Be in the world, not of it. But I've heard lots of libs that want to shut down Christians by trying to use the bible against us saying it means this or that when it doesn't. That was a big thing in the last elections, it just burns them up. It's nothing new though, look at the Russian revolution or French revolution (most any revolution), they shut the Christians up you bet, and a whole lot of people were dead. Christians don't withdraw from the world because the Holy Spirit (GOD) is here at work. Once He's gone, they can have their crummy world all to themselves... at which point they will try to destroy themselves and extinguish the human race.

You are right most people who say they are Christians don’t withdraw.



A Christian is not of the world. Satan is the prince of the World. The world is following Satan. A Christian is supposed to follow Jesus.



Jesus said: (Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”



Now Satan just has to get people to ignore that one verse, and he has won.



Jesus said: (Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.



Now Satan has most Christians disregarding Jesus and making bankers rich. Satan has most Christians trusting in his or her savings accounts, and not God.



Jesus said: (Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”



This verse has to make Satan very happy.



Disobeying God is a sin.



(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work”

 

[Robbie]

I can't believe with the devastation in Japan and all the suffering there, the world is still fighting with itself... what can I say other than FTW!!!

 

[burningfire]

yay! my tax dollars going towards blowing up other countries when people are starving and dying from an EQ the other week.

sarcasm off...

 

[tomwebster]

I can't believe with the devastation in Japan and all the suffering there, the world is still fighting with itself... what can I say other than FTW!!!

So, rob, buy a ticket to Japan and go help. Maybe you just want others to do it!

 

[Foreigner]

Mr. Obama went against another promise in order to do this.

Apparently, Obama feels that if the UN gives the green light, approval from the U.S. Congress isn't necessary.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde#
http://cnsnews.com/image/barack-obama-presidential-candidateObama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’ Monday, March 21, 2011
By Fred Lucas



(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“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,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “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.”

Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

 

[revturmoil]

This is the beginning of it all. It's the apostasy the will reveal the man of sin. It's just beginning. And tribulation will soon too at the hands of the jihadist, The revelation of the antichrist can't be too far away It all depends how quickly the apostasy or 'revolt' spreads and how good or bad it goes in the Islamic world. There's a power vacumn coming and the man of sin will fill that void. While the world is waiting for a global government and religion, prophecy will be passing them by.

 

[[email protected]]

I think this is more of a UN initiative than a US effort - right? And as far as I know, the UN cannot declare war.

You are correct, sir. UN 'initiatives' are technically not the same as a declaration of war. NOBODY does that any more.
Declarations of war were for a more civilized era, a time when governments played by the rules. This is the twenty first century! New rules.

Superficially, this is a UN sanctioned action. A No Fly Zone rule has been accepted and immediately broken as ground units have been attacked (unless the Libyans are now using flying tanks).

In point of fact, the political disturbance across the entire middle east has been orchestrated by the European powers with the united States and UK on point (UN or no UN). The UN is merely a puppet in this. The funny thing is that everybody knows that.

Have you noticed how the whole thing has been timed perfectly? All the disruption in each country has been carefully timed to coincide with disruption in each other country. Why?

To keep the arab interests off balance and guessing as to the true designs of Europe and America.

Demonstrations in Iran months ago began the trouble. The Egyptian government collapses amid an entirely spontaneous popular uprising (except that it was neither). Bahrain is on the verge of collapse and the news media feasts on the trouble. So what? What trouble can an island fifteen miles wide cause?

It provides misdirection, like a magicians trick.

The kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are worried about their own thrones and their eyes are fixed inward. In Algeria, the popular uprising is put down by tons of tear gas provided by -neutral- France.

Just as Egypt's government collapses, and cannot react to trouble with it's neighbor, Libya is ripped in two by civil war (???). What kind of war can a bunch of guys with light weapons in pickup trucks make against a determined government with planes and tanks? Pretty good when you've got uncle sam and his buddies gunning down your enemy for you.

The entire thing from the west coast of Africa to the Persian gulf coast of Iran and the east coast of the Mediterranean was planned and orchestrated by Euro-American interests. The method was and is - to keep arab governments off balance and focused on their own problems. It's been used over and over and is, in fact, a classic military move.

The massive disruption also created a media smoke screen for the general population. The fake picture is one of localized spontaneous popular uprising. The true picture is massive coordinated international cooperation timed to impact upon one arab government after another - ONE AT A TIME.

When the dust settles, the power structure in the middle east will be completely different. (What am I saying? It already is!)

Somewhere in a dark room somewhere, big boys are smiling and slapping each other on the back for a job well done.

I don't agree with it, but I must admit it was masterful work.

 

[[email protected]]

The current events in Libya were instigated by the French in partnership with the British. The united States military was called in to provide military support until the Brits and French could co-ordinate their political and military assets for the rebels.

The end of game scenario as envisioned by the Anglo-French alliance is to obtain indirect political and economic authority over Libya, thereby stripping it of its resources. The uS, as major military whore in the area, was called in to lend temporary support. THE GAME is really a British-French call.

Case in point is news that the Europeans will provide communications and small arms support for the rebels, BUT NOT heavy artillery or high tech weaponry. Why do that? Because a well armed popular local insurgency could possibly seize power away from the Europeans and give it to Libyans (can't have that happen now can we?).

Worst case scenario is some sort of stalemate with Libya divided into two parts. The Europeans can't let that happen and some sort of increased military presence by some nation will ultimately be required to support the rebels. The French have suddenly been distracted by their own military involvement in Ivory Coast. As a result, the major European player is suddenly involved in two wars. Britain can only provide a limited amount of support. Will America get sucked into this war too? It wasn't our call originally, but peace loving Americans can't refuse an invitation to fight another war.

* * *

"Curiously, Americans still believe that sending their sons and daughters to fight, die and become maimed in Washington’s wars is somehow 'serving our country and keeping us free.' The level of deception about America’s military is mind-boggling, and can be directly traced back to the churches of America.

Americans must stop and observe the FACTS. Fact is, war is just another business that maintains manufacturing jobs in America, one of the few remaining sectors of manufacturing that has not left America’s borders. It is the source of bottomless corruption, government waste and campaign contributions.

Washington will NEVER stop fomenting war until it runs out of money. So, do you want to live in a place that practices peace? It will never again happen here in the USA. If you want a nation that does not attack others, send its military outside its borders and waste billions of dollars in useless armaments and new weapons, where will you go?

You will stop supporting America and work for secession in the state where you want to live."
- Russell Longcore

 

[veteran]

All I see it as is political Zionism's control over the U.N. and western powers to bring about the Balflour Plan for Jerusalem.

When western militaries serve in a U.N. peace-keeping capacity, their leaders by that act are handing over their nation's military power to the U.N. goals; serving the U.N. factions and not their own peoples.

One might want to look again at the 45 strategic points in Communism's long-range goals against the West (see my post 'World Communism is Not Dead').

This U.N. mode started right after WWII.

The U.S. military leadership that knew about atomic weapons did not want to use them on Japan. Others used the excuse that Japan would put up a fanatical defense if U.S. trooops landed on its shores was played in favor of using atomic weapons, when U.S. B-29 bombers had actually done MORE destruction upon Japan than both atom bombs.

There was a rush to use the atom bomb upon Japan in order to... usher in the atomic age.

After its use nations would look at each other differently when they thought of going to war. The main purpose was to force the United Nations system over nations as the mediator of future conflicts. In one of the Soviet's long-range points, they were all for the U.N. structure for creating a "one world government", and ironically, most all deputy secretary generals for the U.N. had come from the Soviet bloc nations. Do you ever wonder why western leaders aren't selected as Secretary Generals of the U.N.? The United Nations represents the grand collectivism idea.

In the 1900's, U.S. Congress listened to its voters, and refused to join the then League of Nations (pre-U.N. body). But right at the end of WWII, the U.S. signed on to the U.N. Charter through the subversive influence of Alger Hiss who later was revealed as a Soviet spy. They had... to get the U.S., the most poweful nation on earth, to join, or it wouldn't work as a world collective idea. Collectivism is the idea of a 'union'. And the U.N. represents a world union of nations. That's where U.S. Presidential powers come from that allowed Obama to send U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional consent. Bill Clinton did the same thing with Bosnia. U.S. Congress in 1945 allowed Treaty powers to override their Constitutional authority to declare war.

Every conflict the U.S. has been involved in since WWII has been for U.N. purposes. President George H. Bush even got up on the U.N. podium after the 1990 Gulf War and said the purpose of the Gulf Was was "to empower the United Nations." The globalists believe in "one world government" and they intend to do it whether we the people like it or not. Spats western leaders may show in the U.N. to the public are masks to hide the ultimate purpose for the U.N. as a tool for one world government.

At present, all the major powers at the U.N. are working together against the radicals of Islam. The non-radical Islamic leaders well know they are powerless to fight the U.N. goals. That's why they are working 'with' the U.N. to go after fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. It's also why radical Islam is killing some of their own.

The rebels in Libya which the U.S. supported recently with 124 cruise missles sent against Qadafi fly a flag with a crescent moon and star on it. Those Muslim rebels didn't ask the U.S. for help in setting up Democracy, nor in helping to fight hunger, etc. In other words, this action has nothing to do with humanitarian action like Korea and Vietnam did because of Communists murdering their population. This Libya action shows it is a pure U.N. goal.

 

[[email protected]]

Veteran:
Your premise regarding the present activity in Libya is interesting, however there is no factual data to support it.

The current no-fly zone policy was enacted by the UN ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians. It was actually a cover operation for an Anglo-French military and corporate coup of the country. How do we know that? By observation of what actually happened after that.

Shortly after the no-fly zone policy was passed in the UN, America began bombing heavy Libyan military ground vehicles. The role of the uS has always been temporary and supportive. Time was needed for French President Sarkozy to marshall support in the parliament for military action. He got it. When French aircraft were ready to assume no-fly-zone-bombing-of-Libyan-tanks capacity, the Americans backed off. Unfortunately a civil war erupted in Ivory Coast, which is also an area administered by France (there are 110 such areas). French military assets were diverted to guard their assets and French nationals. Consequently the uS had to intervene once again in Libya until other military could be assigned. The British took over and immediately bombed some rebels by mistake. A British admiral issued an explanation on TV, but no apology was forthcoming. Once again, American offensive aircraft were withdrawn.

The French have stated that they would issue some material to the rebels and late last week a French ambassador arrived in Bengasi.

It's a French game there from beginning to end with support from British and American allies. It's only a part of the uprisings in North Africa, all of which were orchestrated by American, British and French governments. It has nothing whatsoever to do with muslim 'rights' or 'freedom'. Case in point is Egypt. The military there is now in control. When America backs a 'revolution' the local military usually winds up in charge. One totaliatarian regime is replaced by another.

While it is true that the initial act of the UN way back in 1948 was to support Zionist efforts to establish the state of Israel, the organization has been used consistantly since then to promote western adventures throughout the world.

 

[[email protected]]

Western leaders call for Nato to target Gaddafi

Several news sources claim that there is a general call out on behalf of western leaders to assassinate the Libyan leader.

I could be mistaken, but isn't it an act of God which puts a leader in charge of a nation?
Those who participate in this sort of thing, however righteous and just it may seem, are at risk of divine judgment.

There is historical precedent for this sort of warning.

Considering that the whole libyan war was instigated by the French, along with British and American support, the matter now reeks of murder as well as thievery on the part of the NATO alliance.

 

[[email protected]]

News today is not encouraging. We're bombing Yemen now.

Is the bombing of a foreign country now NOT considered to be an act of war?