Security Council accepts No Fly Zone

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,157
12,439
113
Low Earth Orbit
Basically we are butting in with our Liberal Capitalist noses again. We are providing air cover for the Rebels because they are getting their azz kicked. So instead of speaking the truth we say we're protecting civillians.

I can't wait for the first bomb to drop so I can say Obama killed 1 Million Libyans and maintain that number for time immortal.

So we take orders from Libyan defectors now?

NO WAR FOR OIL! NOT IN MY NAME!
It's okay. Soon Obama will be announing the tapping into the 3 Trillion bbl of oil under the Rockies.

First he needs to crash the dollar so all the T-Bills held by Arabs and Chinese will be just paper.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Basically we are butting in with our Liberal Capitalist noses again. We are providing air cover for the Rebels because they are getting their azz kicked. So instead of speaking the truth we say we're protecting civillians.

I can't wait for the first bomb to drop so I can say Obama killed 1 Million Libyans and maintain that number for time immortal.

So we take orders from Libyan defectors now?

NO WAR FOR OIL! NOT IN MY NAME!

Unintentional hilarity.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
As with all military actions, an objective first has to be formed. As odd as it may seem now, coming weeks after the initial start of conflict in Libya, the objective of the no fly zone is to protect the rebellious Libyans from violence by the Gadhafi government. More specifically: prevent civilian targets from being attacked from the air by the Libyan air force and preventing the bringing in of mercenaries via the air.

These ideas came from the Libyan ambassadors who defected, if you remember.
...

I am so abrasive and insensitive that I am tempted to rip you a new one. However, it might be more useful to point out to you that the protection of civilians is not a strategy.

The obvious way to defeat what you believe is a strategy is for Gadhafi's forces to use human shields. Arabs do it all the time because it is effective against Western forces. So what do you do when Gadhafi's forces use human shields?

Btw, the only way to protect Libyan civilians is to remove Gadhafi. That's called Regime Change. A dirty term to American leftists.

America's objective in Libya is not to protect Libyan civilians. The objective is to protect the flow of oil to Europeans. Obama is engaged in one last dying gasp of Pax Americana. This is Blood for Oil.

It's okay. Soon Obama will be announing the tapping into the 3 Trillion bbl of oil under the Rockies.

First he needs to crash the dollar so all the T-Bills held by Arabs and Chinese will be just paper.

The problem with crashing the dollar is that there are other consequences besides screwing Arabs and Han. The average standard of living in America will crash as well.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Genocide isn't the appropriate term in this case. Libya isn't even democide. If genocide was a consideration America would be involved in helping the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This isn't America's problem.

True!

Obama has stuck his neck out, and people like me are going to use it against him as soon as something goes wrong. And something will go wrong. The only certainty is uncertainty.

The first armored column we hit in the desert will show incinerated Libyans still gripping a steering wheel and then we will be back at it again. Justifying why.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
America's objective in Libya is not to protect Libyan civilians. The objective is to protect the flow of oil to Europeans. Obama is engaged in one last dying gasp of Pax Americana. This is Blood for Oil.

Personally, I think my explanation of the strategy makes immeasurable more sense, especially since you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your explanation. So, you're going to "rip me a new one" by just saying things that have no basis in reality? Scary.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Unintentional hilarity.

Very intentional hilarity with a ring of truth. Sucks to be on the other side of the protest line eh Icarus? Democrats and Liberals are finding that out.

(I see you gave up on the Health Care Debate. Wise choice)
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
It's okay. Soon Obama will be announing the tapping into the 3 Trillion bbl of oil under the Rockies.


He's already waffled on the Gulf Coast... Too bad a number of the rigs took contracts in the North Sea and SE Asia.

And while we're at it, don't forget Alaska.

First he needs to crash the dollar so all the T-Bills held by Arabs and Chinese will be just paper.

That's the smart move.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
...
The first armored column we hit in the desert will show incinerated Libyans still gripping a steering wheel and then we will be back at it again. Justifying why.

I have a sense of deja vu about this. Amnesty International has already warned the US that it must comply with international standards of human rights in carrying out this pissant war. Expect the unexpected. There will be correspondents and camera men/women in Tripoli hospitals shortly reporting on severely wounded children maimed by American JDAMS.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Very intentional hilarity with a ring of truth. Sucks to be on the other side of the protest line eh Icarus? Democrats and Liberals are finding that out.

(I see you gave up on the Health Care Debate. Wise choice)

Whatever truth you've been saying has been overshadowed by the amazing display of ignorance and complete lack of perspective about what's happening in Libya.

So no, nothing you've said so far is suck-level to me yet, whether it's you being wrong on Libya or your falsehoods on health care reform.

the protection of civilians is not a strategy.

Also, is so.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Personally, I think my explanation of the strategy makes immeasurable more sense, especially since you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your explanation. So, you're going to "rip me a new one" by just saying things that have no basis in reality? Scary.

Will Libyan civilians be free of threat while Gadhafi remains in power? No.

Gadhafi must destroy the rebels because he can't live with the threat they present. The rebels can't get rid of Gadhafi by themselves in the face of their recent setbacks.

How would you get Gadhafi out of power? The rebels have lost the initiative, and Gadhafi has reorganized, rearmed, and knows that he and his family will all die if he loses.

America must now protect the rebels at all costs. If America loses, Obama will lose the next election. If America wins, the American people won't remember what happened and he gains nothing. Only fools make that kind of bet.

One of us is going to have a new butthole today, and it ain't going to be me.:)

...Also, is so.

Is not.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
I have a sense of deja vu about this. Amnesty International has already warned the US that it must comply with international standards of human rights in carrying out this pissant war. Expect the unexpected. There will be correspondents and camera men/women in Tripoli hospitals shortly reporting on severely wounded children maimed by American JDAMS.

One place where you are EagleSmack engage in unintentional funny is that you assume the American anti-war movement would be opposed to all military conflicts, so it's not a particularly informed parody that you guys are doing. I don't think you'll find that many anti-war Americans who belief the U.S. military should be completely done away with, for example. Even in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, anti-war people probably could have been persuaded more if the idea of protecting innocent Iraqis from Saddam Hussein were brought up more.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Whatever truth you've been saying has been overshadowed by the amazing display of ignorance and complete lack of perspective about what's happening in Libya.

What is happening in Libya is simple.

A rebellion was started. Now the Rebels are getting their azzes kicked and the US and a number of other countries are going to assist the Rebels and most likely overthrow the Gaddafi government.

What is so hard about it?

So no, nothing you've said so far is suck-level to me yet, whether it's you being wrong on Libya or your falsehoods on health care reform.

What falsehoods did I spread?

Are poor and welfare people covered 100% by the governemt? Yes.

You lose.

You tried adding "uninsured" to my words which was completely false. So you are the only one who lacks integrity here.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,157
12,439
113
Low Earth Orbit
He's already waffled on the Gulf Coast... Too bad a number of the rigs took contracts in the North Sea and SE Asia.

And while we're at it, don't forget Alaska.



That's the smart move.
North America is going oil independent. Yeah the slope is going to be opened up, Bakken and under the Rockies. PEMEX can work the gulf. They know it like the back of the asses unlike the big hole Brits trying to take too much from the highest pressure finds in one shot. They got greedy and it failed so back to the ice water where they belong.

It's going to be a rough ride as the dollar goes but hey, we are at war right now so sacrifice is inevitable.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
One place where you are EagleSmack engage in unintentional funny is that you assume the American anti-war movement would be opposed to all military conflicts,


I don't assume that at all and you are foolish to think that.

Todays Anti-War Movement ONLY opposes wars started by Republican Presidents.

so it's not a particularly informed parody that you guys are doing.

It is very informed. We are mocking the anti-war movement themselves as they will remain silent and have been silent since Obama took office. You are a prime example as to the hypocricy of the Liberal Left in the US.


I wonder if we'll send any captured Libyans to GITMO. It is still open correct?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,157
12,439
113
Low Earth Orbit
Oh **** I alost forgot the the Greenland explorations expeditions heading out this summer. There are some nice ventures in the massive Greenland reserves.



This no fly zone will be like all no fly zones. It has nothing to do with saving civilians nor is it humanitary.

Lybians are going to die Rebel or those in the $100,000 a sortie Khadaffi supporting air force.

Keep in mind the rebels are al Qaeda.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Will Libyan civilians be free of threat while Gadhafi remains in power?

They will be free from the air threat coming from the air force Gadhafi controls, which is the objective of Operation Odyssey Dawn. It's not necessarily a part of the objective to help the Libyan rebels win their fight.

Gadhafi must destroy the rebels because he can't live with the threat they present. The rebels can't get rid of Gadhafi by themselves in the face of their recent setbacks.

How would you get Gadhafi out of power? The rebels have lost the initiative, and Gadhafi has reorganized, rearmed, and knows that he and his family will all die if he loses.

America must now protect the rebels at all costs. If America loses, Obama will lose the next election. If America wins, the American people won't remember what happened and he gains nothing. Only fools make that kind of bet.

So, this above is just a bunch of assumptions. Take the first sentence quoted above. "Gadhafi must destroy the rebels because he can't live with the threat they present." Says who? Do we know what Gadhafi thinks? No.

It seems just as likely that we could be sitting here weeks from now talking about how Gadhafi and his family fled to some third country (which would actually be a pretty good outcome).

Are poor and welfare people covered 100% by the governemt? Yes.

You lose..

Perhaps you should check your definitions of "covered", "100%", "government", and "lose".
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
One place where you are EagleSmack engage in unintentional funny is that you assume the American anti-war movement would be opposed to all military conflicts, so it's not a particularly informed parody that you guys are doing. I don't think you'll find that many anti-war Americans who belief the U.S. military should be completely done away with, for example. Even in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, anti-war people probably could have been persuaded more if the idea of protecting innocent Iraqis from Saddam Hussein were brought up more.

I know the American leftist anti-war movement does not oppose all military engagements.

It only opposes those conducted by conservative presidents.

It's called partisan hypocrisy, and has now discredited the American anti-war movement. No blood for oil. What a joke.

I am not being unintentionally funny. I am mocking and ridiculing those on the American left. I hold American leftists in utter contempt, except for Gopher because he's my pal.

Sardonic comments are a form of payback to the left. Payback for Michael Moore hoping for the defeat of American soldiers in Iraq and the victory of the insurgents. Payback for Senator Harry Reid's statement that "This war is lost..." Remember. I haven't forgotten. That was one of the unforeseen consequences of the Second Iraq War, and it changed the nature of the domestic political debate.

I hope both Gadhafi and Obama go down in this fool's errand of a war. You folks on the left have an internal enemy far more dangerous than any foreign opponent you can imagine. It's time for Payback for Queering the Political Equilibrium in America. That is what you should find scary.