Operation Odyssey Dawn???

When I first heard the military action in Libya was tagged "Operation Odyssey Dawn", I thought, "What a stupid and cheeky sounding name". I wondered if the military keeps these names on a list somewhere, just waiting to use them whenever the need arises.

The name has continued to nibble at my insides. First of all it sounds more like the name of a porn star or a 70's disco band than a military undertaking.

I was under the impression that the term 'odyssey' in fact meant a voyage, a trek, as in "2001 Space Odyssey". We all know what 'dawn' means. The beginning. So I decided to look the actual definition up. After doing so, it makes the Obama Administration's choice of moniker in this case, a little more puzzling. That is, if you actually believe that this will be a very short conflict. Perhaps it hints at the reality that most in the media are trying so feverishly to ignore.

The actual definition (according to Dictionary.com):

Od·ys·sey [od-uh-see]
–noun, plural -seys for 2.

1. ( italics ) an epic poem attributed to Homer, describing Odysseus's adventures in his ten-year attempt to return home to Ithaca after the Trojan War.

2. ( often lowercase ) a long series of wanderings or adventures, especially when filled with notable experiences, hardships, etc.

Hmmmm. Makes it a seemingly erroneous choice of words for what is supposed to be a brief effort. Or are we looking at 'just the beginning' of a long series of wanderings in Libya? With the first six days costing $$373 Million, this long series of wanderings will come with a hefty price tag.

O-SPIN-ION Polls

Two new public (US) opinion polls were released this week, regarding the U.S.-led coalition's military action against Libya. The general consensus of these polls (as it's being reported in the mainstream media) is that the majority of Americans approve of the use of military force against Libya.


The Gallup Poll Headline:
Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya

While the poll results were that more respondents approved of the military action than disapproved, the 47 percent approval rating is the lowest approval rating for any military action ever.

The highest approval rating was in 2001, when 90 percent of Americans approved of the invasion of Afghanistan, in response to the September 11th attacks.

Quite a difference between then and now.

Reuters also conducted a poll this week in which it reports that a majority, 60 percent, support the U.S. and its allies in bombing Libya.

What is not being as widely reported is that the 60 percent breaks down like this:
20 percent of respondents who 'strongly supported' the action
40 percent of respondents who 'somewhat supported' the action.

How do you 'somewhat suppport' something? You either support it or you don't.



Regardless of how these numbers and headlines are spun, the numbers speak for themselves. There is NOT overwhelming public support for the United States' involvement in military action against Libya.

The big news today is that NATO is to take over completely from coalition forces in Libya. But what does that really mean?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) includes twenty-eight (28) member countries, including the United States.

From the NATO Core Tasks And Principles:

"The political and military bonds between Europe and North America have been forged in NATO since the Alliance was founded in 1949...and that link remains strong as ever.

The security of NATO members on both sides of the Atlantic is indivisible. We will continue to defend it together, on the basis of solidarity, shared purpose and fair burden-sharing."

The United States is the backbone of NATO. Regardless of whether our involvement is via U.S.-led coalition forces OR via U.S. involvement in NATO forces, the people do not want the U.S. involved at all.

It appears that battle lines are being drawn in the Middle East, and it doesn't look like the U.S. involvement will be ending anytime soon. No matter how it is twisted and spun, the majority of Americans do not support this involvement.

The only way to change that perception is for people to speak out against it. Whether it is through online forums, YouTube, blogs, social networking sites or protesting in the streets...the only way to change it is to be vocal and visible.

Dumbed Down...Dazed, Dense and Dim

NEWSWEEK gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. Citizenship Test--38 percent failed. The country's future is imperiled by our ignorance.

How Dumb are We?

Almost half were clueless about the Bill of Rights. But I bet they can tell you all about Charlie Sheen or some other idiotic topic. Pathetic.

Libya. Here we go again (to war).

Of the number of trendy revolutionary 'uprisings' that began in the middle east last month, it seems that only 2 have been of interest to the US government.  Why, pray tell, do you think this is?  As any real estate broker or savvy businessperson would say..."Location, location baby, location".



First off - Egypt.  The Egyptian revolution was not so much about establishing 'democracy' there, but rather a mass of unemployed/underemployed debt slaves that had their fill of the growing and persistent income inequality.

Yet day in and day out we heard about Egypt and so little about the other 'revolutions' going on in neighboring countries.

And the target of the day now is Libya, Egypt's neighbor.

The globalist foreign policy think tanks were abuzz (and probably drooling) this week, pleading Obama to get into the mix in Libya.
One such organization, The Foreign Policy Initiative, spun it as a humanitarian mission (of course) when they wrote "...the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity."

Hmm....Would that be the same "peace and dignity" currently prevailing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Admittedly, US Officials haven't produced evidence that Qaddafi has been "attacking civilians".  US Department of Defense's Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen in fact, both confirming "We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever."

An important to note to ponder, that received very little attention: Egypt's military (now no longer under Mubarak control) has begun shipping arms to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge.

Is it me or is it deja vu?  Doesn't this eerily seem to be another compilation of, well, I'll call them 'excuses"...to justify and instigate war in yet another country that is advantageously close in proximity to Iran?

It seems that the Globalists are using a regional strategy to destabilize and take over key target nations in the Middle East - one at a time. As each nation falls, the long journey leading toward World Government gets that much shorter.