Is Barack Obama About To Order The U.S. Military To Invade Libya?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

As insane as it might sound, the United States may soon be getting involved in another war in the Middle East.  According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, “no options” have been taken off the table when it comes to the situation in Libya.  By saying that “all options” are being considered, that is basically a way for the Obama administration to threaten Gadhafi without actually coming right out and threatening him.  In recent days, news reports have been appearing all over the mainstream media hyping the possibility that we may have to take military action in Libya.  This would not be happening if the White House did not want it to happen.  The truth is that Barack Obama is apparently seriously considering U.S. military action in Libya.  At first that would probably consist of air strikes and missile attacks, but if the Obama administration decides that it is going to take ground forces to get the job done then we could eventually see the U.S. military actually invade Libya.  But the truth is that any military intervention in Libya would be a really, really bad idea.  Is it really wise to stick our young men and women into the middle of an incredibly bloody civil war?  Do we want to spill even more American blood in order to protect “U.S. interests”?  Do we really want to spend young American lives to keep the price of oil low?  The truth is that the world hates us enough already.  How much more will they hate us if we decide to start bombing Libya into oblivion?


All kinds of justifications are already being floated for potential military action in Libya.  Barack Obama is publicly declaring that the killing of civilians in Libya has got to stop.  As if the U.S. government cares so much about the deaths of civilians.  Millions upon millions of Africans have been slaughtered in Africa over the last couple of decades in numerous civil wars and we have not intervened.

So why now?

Well, because oil is at stake.

If Libya did not produce about 2 percent of the world’s oil nobody in the U.S. government would really care much about what is going on in Libya.

But because Libya is Africa’s largest oil producer suddenly the death of their civilians becomes a matter of “international concern”.

Another reason being floated for taking military action in Libya is the “weapons of mass destruction” that Gadhafi supposedly has.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal went on and on about how concerned the U.S. government is about the “weapons of mass destruction” that are still under Gadhafi’s control….

The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.

The Wall Street Journal article also stated that U.S. officials believe that Gadhafi possesses “1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake” which they believe are a serious threat to the international community.

Doesn’t that sound exactly like something we have all been told before?

The truth is that so much of what we are seeing in the mainstream news right now are “trail balloons” that are being floated by the U.S. government.

They want to see how the American people and the rest of the world are going to respond.

Just check out the CBS video news report posted below.  The American people are being mentally prepared for potential U.S. military action against Libya….

But what is this really all about?

Are Barack Obama and the U.S. government really that concerned about the deaths of a few thousand protesters?


The truth is that they are concerned about Libya’s oil fields.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Sabine Schels recently told Reuters the following….

“We expect Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time.”

That is what this is all about – keeping the flow of oil going around the world.

But the media is trying to pull on our heart strings by highlighting the plight of the protesters.

A recent CNN report quoted Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, as saying the following about the escalating violence of Libya….

“Although reports are still patchy and hard to verify, one thing is painfully clear: in (a) brazen and continuing breach of international law, the crackdown in Libya of peaceful demonstrations is escalating alarmingly with reported mass killings, arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of protesters.”

So the United States, the “police of the world”, have to step in and save those poor people, right?

Oh, and if the first thing we do is to secure “key infrastructure” such as the oil fields that will be okay too, right?

We live in an insane world.

If the international community wants to take action against Libya, shouldn’t this go through the United Nations?

Well, apparently the United Nations Security Council is going to discuss a draft resolution that would impose economic sanctions on Libya, but that isn’t going to mean much to Gadhafi at this point.

If the United States and NATO want to take military action, they are going to have to do it on their own because both Russia and China would likely block the approval of military force by the United Nations.

But wasn’t Obama supposed to be a peacemaker?

Well, that is what he wanted you to believe.

Not only has Obama greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan, now it looks like Obama is laying the groundwork for another war in the Middle East.

In a recent article entitled “Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention“, Michael Martinez of CNN noted that the White House has publicly acknowledged that Barack Obama is discussing how to “immediately respond” to the crisis in Libya with other world leaders….

In separate phone conversations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British Prime Minister David Cameron, Obama “expressed his deep concern with the Libyan government’s use of violence, which violates international norms and every standard of human decency, and discussed appropriate and effective ways for the international community to immediately respond,” the White House statement said.

So what would a “response” by the United States look like?  Well, apparently a whole “range of options” is being considered….

“The leaders discussed the range of options that both the United States and European countries are preparing to hold the Libyan government accountable for its actions, as well as planning for humanitarian assistance,” the White House statement said.

So does this “range of options” include military action?

On Thursday, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley commented on the ongoing discussions inside the Obama administration about the situation in Libya and admitted that “the military is fully involved in these discussions and doing its own thinking about options that can be presented to the president.”

As the violence in Libya escalates there are some troubling signs that the U.S. is getting ready to do something.  The U.S. embassy in Libya has been closed and U.S. personnel have been pulled out of the country.

If Gadhafi makes a “wrong move” we could potentially see military action within days. says that an anonymous “European official” is claiming that the U.S. and NATO have already been very busy making plans for military action against Libya….

The source said NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy may be ordered to take down Libyan planes, and that electronic warfare against them may already have been implemented.

The source told al-Quds al-Arabi that NATO forces may launch an aerial attack on Libya or fire missiles from warships positioned in international waters near Tripoli. Libyan army weapons caches may also be targeted, the source said.

The rest of the world is not amused by all of this.

For example, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is urging the United States and NATO to stay out of what is going on in Libya….

“Give them the opportunity to determine their own fate through natural means and not with any kind of outside interference.”

There is a lot of wisdom in what Putin is saying there.  This is a fight for the Libyan people.  It should be up to them to decide the destiny of their own nation.  If the United States intervenes now, it will no longer be a “revolution of the people”.

The truth is that Libya is not a place we want to be sending U.S. troops.  Libya is a deeply divided nation made up of a large number of tribal factions.  Many of the tribal factions seriously dislike one another.  That is not something you want to step into the middle of.

Not only that, but the people of Libya are not too fond of the United States.  Any U.S. military intervention, no matter how “benevolent”, would be deeply resented.  Our soldiers would rapidly become targets just like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. government certainly cannot afford any more wars.  We have spent over a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  We are in debt up to our eyeballs and we cannot afford another war that is going to cost us hundreds of billions more dollars.

Not only that, but when the U.S. military gets into a country they almost never leave.

Today, the U.S. military has a total of over 700 foreign military bases and is in 130 different countries around the world.  We never left Germany after World War 2.  We never left Japan after World War 2.  We never left South Korea after the Korean War.  It looks like we will not be leaving Iraq or Afghanistan for quite a long time to come.

Can we really afford to be the police of the world?  Can we really afford to have troops in almost every nation on earth?

Hopefully Barack Obama will come to his senses and will not order military action against Libya.  This is a Libyan revolution and this is a fight for the Libyan people to decide.

Any intervention by the United States would be absolutely disastrous.

  • Oil is not the only issue here.

    Many politicians still believe that World War II ended the Great Depression. If Afghanistan and Iraq are not doing the job, perhaps we need a bigger war.

    From Gonzalo Lira, Feb 25, 2011

    Today, the U.K.’s Telegraph is reporting that British government drones in Whitehall are figuring out the legal means to seize Muammar al-Gaddafi’s assets in Britain, which are said to total some £20 billion. Which means that Gaddafi’s days in power are numbered: Whitehall would never dare seize his U.K. assets, unless they were sure that Gaddafi won’t be around to exact revenge or retribution.

    Get ready for war in Libya.

  • The US and its massive militarism reminds me of tribe of Indians that legend has it once lived in my area. This tribe was exceedingly warlike – always attacking its neighbors for the sheer love of war. In fact, they were so much into war that eventually they caused themselves to go extinct through the process of attrition! They may have won every battle, every war, but their crazy course was their own undoing.

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    I read the heading and thought “This is just mind boggling Yellowstone would erupt first.” I will more than likely regret saying this but looking at the previous administrations adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq even B. Obama would not be that stupid. The Europeans have made it clear they don’t have the stomach for defending themselves let alone another Middle Eastern adventure, and left would have to do something. After lousing all credibility after Obama lied about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan the “Anti War Movement” would have to crawl out of their community gardens show their faces. He could do an Air and Missile thing but where is he going to find the troops for any ground invasion we are over extended?

    Libya supplies 2% of the world’s oil for the life of me I see no up side to getting involved, economically politically, militarily. We invaded Iraq and it’s still struggling to increase oil production (If you look few if any of the oil contracts went to US companies). The more I think about it the more it’s just nuts.

  • CountryHick

    The Nobel winning president lol don’t kid yourself folks he would send our troops in there in a minute if he thinks it is to his benefit and then just lie to code pink that it was to stop the bloodshed.

  • Colin

    The US will not send the military into Libya. Saudi Arabia is ramping up production of oil to make up for the deficiency. Most of the major oil fields in Libya are in the east, and are, therefore, under the authority of the opposition. As for the opposition, they are steadily gaining territory every day and are on the verge of encircling Tripoli. The battle for Tripoli may be as awful as the battle for Berlin or Stalingrad.

  • Californian

    We should prepare for WAR and be ready at a seconds notice to hit any targets that start killing civilians enmasse or by Air or WMD. THis should be a Multilateral plan with NATO.
    Also a second plan that would prohibit all foreign Military forces that aid Kadahfi.

  • Piglet

    “Do we really want to spend young American lives to keep the price of oil low?”

    – Keeping the price of oil low is not really a concern for our Gifted Leaders. They simply wish to control the flow in Libya and elsewhere. By having this control, they have leverage to control all of the economies of the world. The gullible US public will be fed another BS story about “humanitarian intervention,” stopping the possible use of “weapons of mass destruction,” blah, blah, blah, and most will want to believe it, but it will not be true this time, either.

  • Clyde Ankle

    What is interesting is that the US doesn’t currently have any warships in the area. Italy would be the likely land and air base with US and Italian forces leading any ground invasion with supporting help from the British and possibly the French. WWII shows the folly of depending on Italian soldiers so this could get interesting. I’m surprised the US didn’t anticipate this situation and have ships in the area to help with the evacuation and spearhead any intervention. With the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria and Morrocco the US should have seen this coming.

  • Pogue

    Why should we waste a single American life on Libya? There is no reason to go there and their plight is nothing to us. We’re not the world’s policeman, nor are we in any way duty-bound to end anyone’s suffering. Besides, it’s suffering and struggle that help to bring a nation together. Well, after a fashion, anyway.

    Where would we be 2 and a half centuries ago if the French and Germans and Spaniards had landed in the British Colonies to prevent right-wing extremists and anti-government militants from deposing the legal and legitimate British royal government and beginning a civil war against their loyalist fellow citizens?

    National experiences, both good and bad, mold a nation and bring it together. We suffered our civil war and revolution, the experience of which still rings among us to this day. We also enjoyed victory after a long struggle in WWII and we shared the Moon Landing. Can you imagine what we would be like without these and all the other important events that we experienced? What would you be like if nothing particularly good or bad happened to you or your country? Seems to me, we shouldn’t be in such a rush to fix everyone’s problems. We can’t afford to, we’re not supposed to, and we might just be preventing other people from pursuing their own national destiny. We don’t seem to be in such a rush to liberate North Korea, Burma, or China…

    If we are going to go in there to bring peace-let’s take the oil. Pure and simple.
    In fact, if we’re going to pretend it is our job to save the world from itself, then let’s do it at the cost of the resources we need. We bring peace to West Africa, we take their gold, diamonds, and uranium. We bring peace to Libya, we take their oil.

    Hell, let’s set up a global insurance plan. How about Americana Pax, “Enjoy peace of mind with Americana Pax.” You get on the plan, pay your bills to us every year, and we protect you from revolution, resource wars, invasion, and whatever else you can think of. Those that enrolled in our insurance plan can piss off or pay a much higher premium up front. Of course, we would have to charge a sliding scale. Nations with preexisting conditions, such as armed ethnic minority groups or narco-terrorists would, of course, have to pay a higher premium. Also, nations with serious health concerns, such as high AIDs and tobacco consumption may have to pay a little more. A nation like Switzerland or Luxembourg would, no doubt, qualify for our lower premiums, while Uganda or Sierra Leone would probably have to be in our high risk percentile.

    What do you think?

  • Elihu

    Libya is just the beginning…what Arab/Muslim Middle East nation will be next on the list?

  • William

    It is military adventurism that has brought America to her knees. War, war, war……but, those who beat the drums of war never fight in one. WAKE UP, America!

  • emma

    I always love listening to the guys from FFT. They are insanely accurate with their stuff.

    This is their latest stuff, and analysis of the S&P 500 chart. It is well worth a look, pretty cool!.

  • Makes one wonder which of puppet masters pulling obama’s strings was economically damaged by the original leak. Prepare for the worst…

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. For details, visit

  • john

    For there will always be wars and rumors of wars.


    I hope that the US does help the Libyans get rid of Ghadaffi ASAP. I spent a year and a half there and the people deserve better.

  • mondobeyondo

    Nigeria is also a large oil producing African country. So let’s send our aircraft carriers and battleships off the coast of Lagos, and threaten to install a “democratic” government there, if their president doesn’t do what we say.

    Ohhh – they already have democracy there? And their president is our friend? Aw, darn! How about Saudi Arabia? They are our friends too? This is not good. You can’t go around stabbing your friends behind their backs. Well you CAN, but that’s what Hitler did to Poland at the beginning of WWII. “We will promise you peace…oops, gotta invade you to keep the peace!” America can’t afford to do that.

    Well, Khadafy is our friend too (sort of, kinda). Naturally, Miss Hillary’s key foreign policy objective would be to help install a dictatorship in Libya – even a semi pro-American dictatorship will do (check! Already done with Kha-Daffy Duck and Hosni Mubarak), plot to overthrow it, then threaten to invade them to get valuable resources if that doesn’t work, and if all else fails, kick them out with some CIA plot if they don’t comply. Worked with Allende in Chile, and Saddam in Iraq. Although Chile doesn’t have any oil to speak of. I don’t know what we were up to down there…

    Remember, the enemy of my friend’s enemy is my enemy, unless I make him my friend on Facebook, then he’s my friend’s friend, which makes him a non-enemy. Or something like that.

  • democratsarefascists

    That’s about the only thing that could get his numbers up. I wonder, though – will we hear “no blood for oil” and see protests when the freaks’ homeboy is in the White House?

  • Guido

    No way, this will be a just war and the media will be pleased as punch to volunteer other people’s lives to fight it.

    Coast to Coast had a guy on last Friday who stated the plan is to get the entire middle east rioting and revolting and to drive oil up to 200-250 dollars a barrel. I don’t know if that’s true, but our country’s fingerprints are on Egypt’s revolt.

    The man who can generate power out of nothing will be the greatest threat to the world’s power brokers that ever lived…

  • Jay

    Hillary, Obama, Farikan and Jeremiah Wright are very close friends of Gadafi. Nuff said.

  • Jadead

    Government is the MEANS, not the origin.

    In this case, the huge U.S. military is being used by the oil companies to increase and consolidate power. It has nothing to do with U.S. interests. The U.S. government is simply a tool for big oil and other massive corporate players.

    It’s much easier to understand the actions of governments if you realize who they really serve.

  • BoB

    I don’t get why the US would invade Libya, almost 80 % of its oil goes to the EU. It seems more reasonable that the EU takes some kind of military action against Khadafi

  • uneducated

    Creating another bullshit to go to war, yeah, go obama, do all those stupid mistake your predecessor did all over again.