muff528 3 #26 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteNow the French and Italians are doing so, too. They may some day rue the decision. News: "Libya rebels will receive $25M from U.S." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/ I'll bet there are U.S. Special Forces there on the ground too. But it's okay for a democratic president to help Al Queda. Just not a republican one. C'mon, now ...don't you believe your government? Obama said no boots on the ground in Libya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 April 22, 2011 News: "Obama has OK'd use of drones in Libya" Source: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/obama-has-okd-use-of-drones-in-libya-gates-says Nary a peep from the anti-war liberals. Next up: - Western hostages in the hands of Ghadaffi forces. - Torture. Beheadings? - Negotiations for their release. - A failed rescue mission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 April 23, 2011 I doubt that Ghadaffi would invite dramatic US escalation by torturing or killing hostages. I think it would more closely resemble the Iran 1980 situation if it occurred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #29 April 23, 2011 QuoteI doubt that Ghadaffi would invite dramatic US escalation by torturing or killing hostages. I think it would more closely resemble the Iran 1980 situation if it occurred. John is giving but one plausible - and sensible - prediction of how this could mission-creep out of control into a "Blackhawk Down" type of situation; and I basically agree with that part of it. It's too bad that he so frequently seems compelled to couch it in terms of a swipe at Obama, or a swipe at liberals, or both, for that devalues the effect of the message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #30 May 1, 2011 Welp... now they/we have killed one of Ghadaffi's sons and 3 of his grandchildren. So here's some mission creep: We tried (again) to kill Ghaddafi, and failed (again) to do so, killing some of his relatives (again) instead. So now we have to wipe out Ghaddafi and his entire regime; because if we let them live, his rage will be a source of terrorism against the West for as long as he lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrokenR1 0 #31 May 1, 2011 Quote so we crossed the line as well. Quotewhich is clearly in contravention to international law. What line did we cross and how exactly is arming the rebels in contravention to international law? Didn't Gaddafi basically screw himself when his troops began using cluster bombs? Seems like that opened him to all sorts of options by other countries now. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #32 May 1, 2011 QuoteWelp... now they/we have killed one of Ghadaffi's sons and 3 of his grandchildren. So here's some mission creep: We tried (again) to kill Ghaddafi, and failed (again) to do so, killing some of his relatives (again) instead. So now we have to wipe out Ghaddafi and his entire regime; because if we let them live, his rage will be a source of terrorism against the West for as long as he lives. Don't want him going all 'Chuck Norris' on us.... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #33 May 1, 2011 QuoteQuote so we crossed the line as well. Quotewhich is clearly in contravention to international law. What line did we cross and how exactly is arming the rebels in contravention to international law? Didn't Gaddafi basically screw himself when his troops began using cluster bombs? Seems like that opened him to all sorts of options by other countries now. He screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #34 May 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteWelp... now they/we have killed one of Ghadaffi's sons and 3 of his grandchildren. So here's some mission creep: We tried (again) to kill Ghaddafi, and failed (again) to do so, killing some of his relatives (again) instead. So now we have to wipe out Ghaddafi and his entire regime; because if we let them live, his rage will be a source of terrorism against the West for as long as he lives. Don't want him going all 'Chuck Norris' on us.... And NATO shouldn't go wobbly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #35 May 1, 2011 Quote He screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long. We all make a few mistakes and shoot down innocent airliners every now an then (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 May 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWelp... now they/we have killed one of Ghadaffi's sons and 3 of his grandchildren. So here's some mission creep: We tried (again) to kill Ghaddafi, and failed (again) to do so, killing some of his relatives (again) instead. So now we have to wipe out Ghaddafi and his entire regime; because if we let them live, his rage will be a source of terrorism against the West for as long as he lives. Don't want him going all 'Chuck Norris' on us.... And NATO shouldn't go wobbly. and lets' not forget ... America is part of NATO too... no lighting the blue touch paper and running away to sit on a fence..... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #37 May 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWelp... now they/we have killed one of Ghadaffi's sons and 3 of his grandchildren. So here's some mission creep: We tried (again) to kill Ghaddafi, and failed (again) to do so, killing some of his relatives (again) instead. So now we have to wipe out Ghaddafi and his entire regime; because if we let them live, his rage will be a source of terrorism against the West for as long as he lives. Don't want him going all 'Chuck Norris' on us.... And NATO shouldn't go wobbly. and lets' not forget ... America is part of NATO too... no lighting the blue touch paper and running away to sit on a fence..... Right - 31% of federal taxpayer dollars go the the Department of Defense in one way or another. Gotta set off those firecrackers to make room for the new ones the military-industrial complex is preparing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #38 May 1, 2011 QuoteHe (Ghadaffi) screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long. Does that justify killing his grandchildren? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #39 May 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHe (Ghadaffi) screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long. Does that justify killing his grandchildren? Probably not, if they (the kids) were specifically targeted. But it appears that the target was the very top of "command and control": Ghaddafi and his adult sons. And they knew fully well that they were targets. That being the case, they had a moral obligation to get those kids the hell out of obvious harm's way. Their failure to do so, which I think can reasonably be presumed to be deliberate, amounts to the despicable tactic of using those children as human shields. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mircan 0 #40 May 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe (Ghadaffi) screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long. Does that justify killing his grandchildren? Probably not, if they (the kids) were specifically targeted. But it appears that the target was the very top of "command and control": Ghaddafi and his adult sons. And they knew fully well that they were targets. That being the case, they had a moral obligation to get those kids the hell out of obvious harm's way. Their failure to do so, which I think can reasonably be presumed to be deliberate, amounts to the despicable tactic of using those children as human shields. I`m sure that it`s their own fault that they were killed... And not the people droping bombs...dudeist skydiver #42 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #41 May 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHe (Ghadaffi) screwed himself when he sponsored the bombing on Pan Am Flight 103. The wait has just been rather long. Does that justify killing his grandchildren? Probably not, if they (the kids) were specifically targeted. But it appears that the target was the very top of "command and control": Ghaddafi and his adult sons. And they knew fully well that they were targets. That being the case, they had a moral obligation to get those kids the hell out of obvious harm's way. Their failure to do so, which I think can reasonably be presumed to be deliberate, amounts to the despicable tactic of using those children as human shields. I`m sure that it`s their own fault that they were killed... And not the people droping bombs... That is a very childish twisting of what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
