0
JohnRich

Should the U.S. intervene in Libya?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The sooner you all realise all religion is violent, the better off you will be...



which one? yours?



He said ALL! WHY CAN'T YOU READ?



Because he, like you, ignores one just as violent and vitriolic


Most likely the same one you practice



*WHOOSH* yourself....in capital letters.
ALL includes every one of them...even the one you think he ignored.

*open mouth, insert foot icon* just for you.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The sooner you all realise all religion is violent, the better off you will be...



which one? yours?


He said ALL! WHY CAN'T YOU READ?


Because he, like you, ignores one just as violent and vitriolic


Most likely the same one you practice


*WHOOSH* yourself....in capital letters.
ALL includes every one of them...even the one you think he ignored.

*open mouth, insert foot icon* just for you.


:D

A big WHOOSH back at cha dude

Another fail at mind reading

and I know there is one you opinionated ones leave out:o

:D:D

Funny shit you post though

Thanks for starting out my day:D
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The rebels are irregular, do not wear uniforms, and when faced with defeat melt back into the population. Are they not terrorists under the US military's definition?



OK, one more time:
- If we like them, they are freedom fighters.
- If we don't like them, they are terrorists.

M'kay?:ph34r:


IMO, they can only be classified as terrorists if they attack civilians. Attacking military/government targets makes them a legitimate opposing army/militia. Forming such a legitimate militia is the only recourse when living in a dictatorship - since there is no option to change leadership at the polls.

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding ding ding.

There is a difference between insurgetns/guerilla fighters and terrorists. One is a military force. The other is a bunch of murderers. They're only called freedom fighters if we like them. :)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A big WHOOSH back at cha dude

Another fail at mind reading

and I know there is one you opinionated ones leave out:o



Oh, the irony of it all.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



Now, THERE'S a clear-headed thought for discussion.
:)
Dilemma is right.
For those opposed to intervention, it a significant point to ponder.

Me, right now....material/logistical help, yes. Military intervention, no.

Anyone remember Idi Amin?
That was a severe dilemma, too.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



Now, THERE'S a clear-headed thought for discussion.
:)
Dilemma is right.
For those opposed to intervention, it a significant point to ponder.

Me, right now....material/logistical help, yes. Military intervention, no.

Anyone remember Idi Amin?
That was a severe dilemma, too.


In one thread you state that we shouldn't intervene at all and in this thread you state that we should intervene with material and logistical help ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



If a republican is president, it is evil and illegal to help such people.
If a democrat is president, then it is humane and justified to assist them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



If a republican is president, it is evil and illegal to help such people.
If a democrat is president, then it is humane and justified to assist them.



Interesting. Remember Nerdgirl? She had THIS up on facebook earlier. Rather interesting contrast between the "neocons" and the "liberal interventionists"
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



If a republican is president, it is evil and illegal to help such people.
If a democrat is president, then it is humane and justified to assist them.



I don't think there are too many democrats playing hypocrite and claiming this is the right thing for President Obama to do....that it is humane and justified or anything. Just look at the poll on this thread.... for the people I've talked to personally in the past few days, it seems like the people who thought it was wrong to play the worlds police during President Bush's terms think that it's just as wrong now too. Definitely not justified all because it's a dem doing it.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

A big WHOOSH back at cha dude

Another fail at mind reading

and I know there is one you opinionated ones leave out:o



Oh, the irony of it all.


No shit:S
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This kind of situation (a non-democratic government at war with it's own citizens) is a dilemma. Should the world stand by and watch as a dictator ignores the needs of the citizenry, then slaughters those that disagree? Who stands up for civilians when their own government attacks them?



If a republican is president, it is evil and illegal to help such people.
If a democrat is president, then it is humane and justified to assist them.



When one really looks at this at this time there is only one nuanced difference between what Bush did and what Obama is doing

the UN has some more input

Now that group is leaving going in like a bun leaves a boxcar

Much to think about
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When one really looks at this at this time there is only one nuanced difference between what Bush did and what Obama is doing

the UN has some more input



Not . . . even . . . close.

Obama didn't want to have anything to do with Libya. He's meeting an obligation as a member state of the UN.

The 43rd Administration advocated for the invasion of Iraq. Members of the PNAC which made up much of the 43rd Administration had been pressing for an invasion for years -- even before GWB took office.

WORLDS of difference.

I didn't like GWB's war and I don't like this one, but to say there is only a small difference is dishonest and misleading.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right
Many Dems are remaining cosistant
At least that lays the foundation for an honest debate

To add you your point

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/first-cracks-emerge-in-military-coalition-on-libya-20110322-1c42z.html

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/21/dem_congressman_were_in_libya_because_of_oil.html

It will create an interesting insight into the Obama presidency looking at how he responds to all of this
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what has been reported this is a popular uprising against a tyranical, fascist like regime.

Allied forces including British, American and Commonwealth forces , cleared the same area of modern Libya of nazi fascist forces in WW2.

Imagine if we all had to live inder such a regime. I'm sure we couldn't toperate it. There'd be more than just peaceful gatherings in the street I'm sure.

Americans, French , British, Canadian, South African , Australian , New Zealand, and our other European Allies would not long tolerate such a regime in their own countries.

It is the best thing that the US is there with a strong enough military to stand up against the true despots in this world.

This Libyan crisis is very goood chance to do a very good deed indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that every time we get involved in these situations we only make things worse. Why not try a different approach this time and stay out of it? why not? see what happens?

Tomahawks are about half a million each and we just shot off 120 of them, I thought we were broke and trying to save money?

Call it what you want, we just attacked another country that never fired a shot at us, for what?

Defense my ass, Libya was no threat to us.
Onward and Upward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Call it what you want, we just attacked another country that never fired a shot at us, for what?

Defense my ass, Libya was no threat to us.



Consider this hypothetical.

You're walking down a street and you see a big kid beating the crap out of a smaller kid. You personally aren't in any danger, but the big kid has a baseball bat and he's starting to wail on the little kid with it.

What do YOU do?

Do you;

A) Stand there and just watch the fight happen?
B) Take the baseball bat away from the big kid?
C) Kill the big kid.

I'm personally not for intervening in a civil war. I would have preferred the "Arab League" step up to the plate and enforce peace among it's own kind. Actually, I would have really preferred Gaddafi just pack a few billion in gold on to a plane and fly to France, but that's not the path he took.

When one side has overwhelming force available to it and it appears that it also has no issue with idea with exterminating its opposition, it makes sense that somebody denies them the ability to perform wholesale slaughter on a large population of people.

This is NOT the US's doing. The US is fulfilling its obligations as a member of the UN. Like it or not, the fact is, the US is the absolute best equipped country on the planet to start this type of mission. The US's ability to knock out communications, radar and to generally fuck up air bases thereby denying a country the use its air force is truly staggering.

The US plans are to very shortly be handing the no-fly enforcement over to the rest of the UN.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22libya.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-no-fly-20110322,0,7524055.story

Trust me when I tell you Obama very specifically wants as little to do with a war in Libya as possible. He hemmed and hawed and was dragged into this mess strictly to fulfill the obligations to the UN. People bitched and moaned about that as well. The reality is he was pretty fucked either way through no fault of his own making.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, people use that argument a lot ... but you have already bought those, so if you didn't fire them you wouldn't have saved money....

(of course you had to pay postage delivery charges, I'll give you that.

It's only when you come to replace them that they will cost you again.

Actually, it could be argued that you saved money by firing them ... they no longer need storage or maintenance!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Call it what you want, we just attacked another country that never fired a shot at us, for what?

Defense my ass, Libya was no threat to us.



Consider this hypothetical.

You're walking down a street and you see a big kid beating the crap out of a smaller kid. You personally aren't in any danger, but the big kid has a baseball bat and he's starting to wail on the little kid with it.

What do YOU do?

Do you;

A) Stand there and just watch the fight happen?
B) Take the baseball bat away from the big kid?
C) Kill the big kid.

I'm personally not for intervening in a civil war. I would have preferred the "Arab League" step up to the plate and enforce peace among it's own kind. Actually, I would have really preferred Gaddafi just pack a few billion in gold on to a plane and fly to France, but that's not the path he took.

When one side has overwhelming force available to it and it appears that it also has no issue with idea with exterminating its opposition, it makes sense that somebody denies them the ability to perform wholesale slaughter on a large population of people.

This is NOT the US's doing. The US is fulfilling its obligations as a member of the UN. Like it or not, the fact is, the US is the absolute best equipped country on the planet to start this type of mission. The US's ability to knock out communications, radar and to generally fuck up air bases thereby denying a country the use its air force is truly staggering.

The US will very shortly be handing the no-fly enforcement over to the rest of the UN.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22libya.html

Trust me when I tell you Obama very specifically wants as little to do with a war in Libya as possible. He hemmed and hawed and was dragged into this mess strictly to fulfill the obligations to the UN. People bitched and moaned about that as well. The reality is he was pretty fucked either way through no fault of his own making.



Interesting hypothetical but you would have to ask why we did not get involved in the Sudan when millions were slaughtered? Lots a bullies there....Nobody cared about that!

Why libya, why now?

Oh yeah, they got the oil.

We borrow money from China to build bombs to shoot at Tripoli......Makes perfect sense
Onward and Upward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Interesting hypothetical but you would have to ask why we did not get involved in the Sudan when millions were slaughtered? Lots a bullies there....Nobody cared about that!


Not true. The US cared quite a bit, but short of putting troops on the ground, what could be done? Certainly nothing as surgical as this situation.


***Why libya, why now?


Because it's something that can actually be done.

It's the reason I phrased the hypothetical the way I did. The US removes the Libyan government's ability to bomb its own people. It has an instant and very large effect on making the playing field a bit more level. Nothing like that could be done in Sudan.

As for your comment about oil -- that's lunacy. Sudan's largest export IS oil. Sudan produces about 520,000 barrels per day. Sudan absolutely HAS oil.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Interesting hypothetical but you would have to ask why we did not get involved in the Sudan when millions were slaughtered? Lots a bullies there....Nobody cared about that!


Not true. The US cared quite a bit, but short of putting troops on the ground, what could be done? Certainly nothing as surgical as this situation.


***Why libya, why now?


Because it's something that can actually be done.

It's the reason I phrased the hypothetical the way I did. The US removes the Libyan government's ability to bomb its own people. It has an instant and very large effect on making the playing field a bit more level. Nothing like that could be done in Sudan.

As for your comment about oil -- that's lunacy. Sudan's largest export IS oil. About 520,000 barrels per day.


And I am sure the Sudan people benefit.

Sorry, lobbing cruise missiles just because we can is not always the best option.

Just my opinion, but I always wanted captain Kirk to blast the Klingons because it was cool to see the bad guys get hammered.

You Know, the old freedom verses evil thing.

C-ya
Onward and Upward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In one thread you state that we shouldn't intervene at all and in this thread you state that we should intervene with material and logistical help ...



It's nice to know that your following along.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Call it what you want, we just attacked another country that never fired a shot at us, for what?

Defense my ass, Libya was no threat to us.



Consider this hypothetical.

You're walking down a street and you see a big kid beating the crap out of a smaller kid. You personally aren't in any danger, but the big kid has a baseball bat and he's starting to wail on the little kid with it.

What do YOU do?

Do you;

A) Stand there and just watch the fight happen?
B) Take the baseball bat away from the big kid?
C) Kill the big kid.



Lousy analogy.
We're here at home. What we do at home is OUR business.

Your analogy would have been better served had you said, "Libya sent a pro hit man over here to kill the big kid.

How do you respond now?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because it's something that can actually be done.


...as if there were no other choices.
Yeah.. We CAN bomb the fuck out of them so LET'S DO IT! Yayyyyyy!!!!!!

Unbelievable attitude and reasoning.

Quote

The US removes the Libyan government's ability to bomb its own people. It has an instant and very large effect on making the playing field a bit more level.


So, it's OK to level every playing field everywhere on the planet, eh?

Unbelievable attitude and reasoning.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It is the best thing that the US is there with a strong enough military to stand up against the true despots in this world.


True enough. The problem is that we use that ability against other countries, within their borders, to interfere with their national methodology. The Big Brother syndrome.

That interference causes us enormous problems throughout the world. We are not well-liked because of our interference. "Yankee Go Home" didn't come about because we were doing good things for others. It came about because we are interfering. Simple as that.

Quote

This Libyan crisis is very goood chance to do a very good deed indeed.


Nope. Not at all. It's another chance to exercise, what has become, our self-proclaimed function in life to be Big Brother to the world.

Question:
How long do you think it will be, after Omar is put out (if he is), before the people we supported in this mess will be screaming "Yankee Go Home"?

Our goobermint and the war mongers will never learn.
[:/]
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0