Security Council accepts No Fly Zone
- Thread starter Durry
- Start date
I note how you left to the side the USSR, Cuba as their proxy - Kinda single track thinking is it not?
I hear what you're saying, but the "medical condition" that gopher refers too relates to poor decisions as opposed to poverty.
Congo? What's going on in Congo? Hang on....my pocket is buzzing I have a text.......
Rebel Conga lines?...
BTW - The vibrate function was the best addition to cell phones. It's like a mini massage in yer pocket.
Are they hands free so the Congolese can enjoy them too?
It's a shame that 1 in 100000 people will get that.
What will the tree huggers think when lakes are drained and swaths of forest opened up in SK so there pockets keep buzzing? Are you in?
Myself, now do not take it as a slight, would need a much bigger and longer phone. Deeper pockets as well.
Honestly, I am a little surprised. I think I shouldn't be, but I am. Most other forums I've been to in the past, people who demonstrate zero critical thought and just start posting their ideological cliches (e.g. "it's all about the oil!!") get argued down and start realizing the can't get away with it. But for some reason around here people post nonsense without apprehension.
Right. There is FAT up and down the economic scale. I am saying that our impovershished are given enough money and free food to get morbidly obese... and they do often.
The State and Federal Agencies enable them whereas poor in foreign nations are truly hungry. Real hunger. Not hungry because their Mom or Dad is blowing the money on booze or are simply to lazy to get out and buy groceries like here in the US.
Honestly, I am a little surprised. I think I shouldn't be, but I am. Most other forums I've been to in the past, people who demonstrate zero critical thought and just start posting their ideological cliches (e.g. "it's all about the oil!!") get argued down and start realizing the can't get away with it. But for some reason around here people post nonsense without apprehension.
Too funny.
They'll bitch that they are are being charged too much and then moan about their rights..... Count me in!
I'm right there with you EagleSmack..
My question is Obama wants Qaddafi out - along with other leaders wnating him out - so when do they start training and arming the rebels - next will be small teams that can direct, pinpoint targets, fewer civilians are killed -injured - but you still need the boots on the ground - they still need the guy on the ground with the laser. When will we see that.Honestly, I am a little surprised. I think I shouldn't be, but I am. Most other forums I've been to in the past, people who demonstrate zero critical thought and just start posting their ideological cliches (e.g. "it's all about the oil!!") get argued down and start realizing the can't get away with it. But for some reason around here people post nonsense without apprehension.
Or will the Arab league offer him political asylum?
Re OP
I think were going to see boots on the ground by coalition forces, probably in a couple weeks.
Gdaffy is not going to leave an you will see a civil war, trained military vs untrained military !!
Again, I don't think France thought this thu at the beginning ....again !!!
I think were going to see boots on the ground by coalition forces, probably in a couple weeks.
Gdaffy is not going to leave an you will see a civil war, trained military vs untrained military !!
Again, I don't think France thought this thu at the beginning ....again !!!
The Arab league are all hiding in their burkas. They also have unrest in their countries.
Like I said earlier, we've made ourselves enemies of the Gaddafi regime, we're at war with Libya, and this no-fly zone was enacted a week too late after Gaddafi already used his air force and gained the upper hand against the rebels. I think the only good way this will end is with a stronger commitment. If Gaddafi stays in power, relations will be poisoned. What little progress Libya has made since 2003 in reforming itself from an international pariah and state sponsor of terror to a business as usual don't-mention-the-human-rights petrol pal will be lost. (The latter doesn't sound so good, but it's still an improvement from the former.) Things would be worse off now if Gaddafi wins than it would have been had he won but we hadn't involved ourselves in any way.
I wouldn't put out oil being a factor here. Not that the West is stepping in to take all the oil, but why not secure the production of the world's most valuable commodity? The world economy relies on the stuff and an alarming number of states with huge oil reserves are oppressive dictatorships and state sponsors of terror. It could be an influencing factor in drawing the world's attention and I wouldn't be too put off to find out if it was. But that's just academic. There's a lot more involved here. I would only support action if it was primarily for humanitarian reasons and in my opinion overthrowing a dictatorship like Libya is a humanitarian enough reason alone. Libya has gone the worst of all the recent Arab uprisings. Gaddafi is insane and will bomb his own people. It would destabilize Libya's neighbours sending refugees around Africa and Europe. And one can employ a healthy dose of cynicism without getting into the conspiracy theories: why doesn't the international community intervene more in other countries? One example we had earlier was North Korea. North Korea is a nuclear power, can destroy Seoul in a matter of hours is backed up by China. Iran is also too powerful to take without a major commitment and the people there are decidedly anti-Western. An invasion would be a total disaster as the whole country would freak out. The monarchy in Bahrain is propped up by Saudi Arabia, a wealthy and influential state. Libya is, as I said, a former pariah with very friends. It's comparatively weak but slightly more important economically than say, Somalia. Libya is ripe.
I don't think we or anyone should be there at all. It is a Civil War. Nevertheless we are all in it now and we have chosen sides. I doubt strongly that it is too late. After the first night of strikes we relieved all the immediate pressure off the Rebs. It is a huge desert and Gaddaffi can't move troops to and fro at this point. He lacks air cover and that is pretty darn important in desert warfare.
What a mess. I hope the Rebs can do what they said they can do.
The Reds don't have a hope in hell of defeating a trained military.
Soon to come.....boots on the ground ....da ja vu !!
If I recall correctly the former Soviet union, after Reagan bombed libya sent expert to find out why their kit did not work. So mostly russian. Not all, the French sold him some aircraft. I am unsure about the US though.
I don't buy into the idea that a civil war is something the international community should not get involved in. One of my biggest problems with the United Nations is that it legitimizes and protects oppressive dictatorships. I think this is a problem conservative isolationists have too, yes? Well, it's my belief that oppressive dictatorships have no right to the principle of state sovereignty the United Nations affords them that makes me an interventionist. As I said before, this isn't an internal affair; it's a human affair.
Didn't this guy have nukes at one time ??
Ummm, I'm not sure I would characterize it this way, in some way they are all human affairs??
I think it's just plain and simple Power!!!! Hang on to it as long as you can. It's even more important if you derranged in some ways !!
I simply don't feel that it is our business. Who are the Rebels? Who is their leader? If the Rebels win will they be forever appreciative of what was done for them? Will there leader welcome us with open arms?
I doubt it.
There are human affairs all over. I know we can't stamp out all the fires but why Libya and not Dafur, etc.