Quote:
EDIT: BBC and Sky News also reporting that Gadaffi has threatened attacks against NATO and UN airbases in Cyprus and Southern Italy, god Allah @#%^ing help him if he's that stupid.
No, it's the correct move as he has already lost.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Libyan No-Fly Zone
Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow
No, it's the correct move as he has already lost.
Just as Planned.
It's interesting to me that France as been the most vocal about the whole situation. Usually it's the US pushing for action at the UN. Reading BBC, it seems we took a backseat while France and the UK piped it up. Whatever gets the job done.
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
Hopefully this will get resolved rather quickly and with minor US intervention (no US ground troops, etc).
OmegaTyrant wrote:
Hopefully this will get resolved rather quickly and with minor US intervention (no US ground troops, etc).
From the sound of it, the US participation is going to be restricted to drones, missiles and support aircraft for refueling, surveillance and communications jamming. No manned combat flights.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
klausneck wrote:
It's interesting to me that France as been the most vocal about the whole situation. Usually it's the US pushing for action at the UN. Reading BBC, it seems we took a backseat while France and the UK piped it up. Whatever gets the job done.
It's actually kind of nice for the US to take more of a support role this time.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Kastigir wrote:
klausneck wrote:
It's interesting to me that France as been the most vocal about the whole situation. Usually it's the US pushing for action at the UN. Reading BBC, it seems we took a backseat while France and the UK piped it up. Whatever gets the job done.
It's actually kind of nice for the US to take more of a support role this time.
Agreed. While I support the effort, I hope it stays as a support role. It's time some other NATO countries start taking the lead on stuff like this.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Kadhafi attacking Benghazi during what was supposed to be a cease fire is what's doomed him, it's gotten most of the EU to support NATO action. And now Kadhafi has pretty much declared war on the rest of the world, at least he's going out with a bang.
It's good NATO is leading this, the US doesnt' need to be seen to be steping on another Middle-Eastern/Northern African country.
It's kind of taken me by surprise we're going into Libya. Several months ago, I was hoping with all my heart we wouldn't, back when the US was talking about Libya getting nukes, and what a bad thing that would be. As far as I was concerned, no-one had a right to invade a sovereign nation, and nuclear détente is just something the world has to live with, and has been living with for a long time.
Then all the popular uprisings happened in the M-E against their own governments, and it seemed right to support what seems to be the majority of the citizenry in uprisings. Thankfully elsewhere the army wouldn't take on it's own citizens, but in Libya and elsewhere, foreign troops have been brought in, who don't care what the national citizens there want. That hardly seems fair, and I'm on the side of supporting citizens in a civil war like this.
At least where it's pretty clear where the numbers lie.
Edited, Mar 20th 2011 10:27am by Aripyanfar
It's kind of taken me by surprise we're going into Libya. Several months ago, I was hoping with all my heart we wouldn't, back when the US was talking about Libya getting nukes, and what a bad thing that would be. As far as I was concerned, no-one had a right to invade a sovereign nation, and nuclear détente is just something the world has to live with, and has been living with for a long time.
Then all the popular uprisings happened in the M-E against their own governments, and it seemed right to support what seems to be the majority of the citizenry in uprisings. Thankfully elsewhere the army wouldn't take on it's own citizens, but in Libya and elsewhere, foreign troops have been brought in, who don't care what the national citizens there want. That hardly seems fair, and I'm on the side of supporting citizens in a civil war like this.
At least where it's pretty clear where the numbers lie.
Edited, Mar 20th 2011 10:27am by Aripyanfar
Jophiel wrote:
OmegaTyrant wrote:
Hopefully this will get resolved rather quickly and with minor US intervention (no US ground troops, etc).
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Kastigir wrote:
klausneck wrote:
It's interesting to me that France as been the most vocal about the whole situation. Usually it's the US pushing for action at the UN. Reading BBC, it seems we took a backseat while France and the UK piped it up. Whatever gets the job done.
It's actually kind of nice for the US to take more of a support role this time.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Ironically, its those drones, missiles and support aircraft that are the single most expensive piece to an operation like this. Oh well, its good training for the missile crews. they don;t get to practice fire many of those for some reason.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Hopefully not only will this avoid making America seem like the big bad interloper in other nations' affairs, but will also send a message to the developing world that the developed world at large won't stand for these injustices. It'd be nice if the perception goes from US= bully, to developed nations= better keep your **** straight.
Kachi wrote:
Hopefully not only will this avoid making America seem like the big bad interloper in other nations' affairs, but will also send a message to the developing world that the developed world at large won't stand for these injustices. It'd be nice if the perception goes from US= bully, to developed nations= better keep your sh*t straight.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kachi wrote:
Hopefully not only will this avoid making America seem like the big bad interloper in other nations' affairs, but will also send a message to the developing world that the developed world at large won't stand for these injustices. It'd be nice if the perception goes from US= bully, to developed nations= better keep your sh*t straight.
This has nothing to do with injustices. If Libya wasn't sitting on so much oil, the rest of the world would sit back and watch.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It's still the West @#%^ing with the rest of the world. That's all the ME will see.
In theory, that's why the West waited for the Arab League to agree with a no-fly zone before tkaing it to the UN. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are supposed to be flying patrols so there's a ME presence.
Of course: "In theory..."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,†one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.â€
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
At least W got approval from congress to deal with Iraq.
Is this where you start talking about Obama's unilateral decision to resolve this?
Quote:
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,†one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.â€
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
At least W got approval from congress to deal with Iraq.
Is this where you start talking about Obama's unilateral decision to resolve this?
I could be wrong, but can't the president use the military for like... 60 or 90 days without going to Congress? I seem to recall that was done back in the beginning of Vietnam. If Obama expects the mission to last more than a few months he'll go to Congress.
varusword75 wrote:
Is this where you start talking about Obama's unilateral decision to resolve this?
Commander-in-Chief
War Powers Resolution
And you used to teach Social Studies? Hahahaha... thank God you failed out of THAT job.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Riiiiiiiiigghttt....
No, seriously, we all believe you.
No, seriously, we all believe you.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Heh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
Obviously sarcasm isn't your cup of tea.
Obviously sarcasm isn't your cup of tea.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#125REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 3 pages later and not to many Dems jumping to defend Obama's current foreign policy blunder.
varusword75 wrote:
3 pages later and not to many Dems jumping to defend Obama's current foreign policy blunder.
I'm still scratching my head at how you can be against Obama taking military action in Libya. Like Iraq, Libya's got oil. Like Iraq, they have a dictator. Unlike Iraq, the UN actually supports taking military action. Unlike Iraq, the people rose up before we started fighting there. Unlike Iraq, we hopefully won't see any casualties nor a dragged-out war.
It's pretty much all good and no bad. We act as the world police, are seen as heroes, and get to fire off some explosives costing tax-payers millions of dollars. Might even get a good oil deal out of it. From a Republican POV, it's pretty much the perfect fight.
Recent Visitors: 296
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Libyan No-Fly Zone
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC