Do I hear 4? How about 5? FIVE front war!

[Broheim]

It's a civil war that poses no threat to the US. We have no business being there and am frankly surprised that so many on the Left think this action is acceptable.

it's a humanitarian effort to protect the civilian population, nothing else.
it has nothing to do with oil or killing Gaddafi. we (the coalition) are there to make sure a ruthless dictator doesn't kill non-combatants, I should think tyranny would be something you Americans can relate to.

 

[BoberFett]

it's a humanitarian effort to protect the civilian population, nothing else.
it has nothing to do with oil or killing Gaddafi. we (the coalition) are there to make sure a ruthless dictator doesn't kill non-combatants, I should think tyranny would be something you Americans can relate to.

You fools can come up with any rationalization for war as long as the president is on your team, huh?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

it's a humanitarian effort to protect the civilian population, nothing else.
it has nothing to do with oil or killing Gaddafi. we (the coalition) are there to make sure a ruthless dictator doesn't kill non-combatants, I should think tyranny would be something you Americans can relate to.

If this is the 'new standard' used to justify military intervention then we're going to be very, very busy. I, for one, think implementing this 'new standard' is akin to opening Pandora's Box where you can now "justify" most anything you want. Is this what liberals really want?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Damn. I guess we're need a bigger military force as there's at least 30 or more country's that that the leadership either kills or mistreats their opposition/civilians.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's a civil war that poses no threat to the US. We have no business being there and am frankly surprised that so many on the Left think this action is acceptable.

it's a humanitarian effort to protect the civilian population, nothing else.
it has nothing to do with oil or killing Qaddafi. we (the coalition) are there to make sure a ruthless dictator doesn't kill non-combatants, I should think tyranny would be something you Americans can relate to.

And why is the Arab League and EU not concerned with all the other dozen similar situations in Asia and Africa that are identical.

It is not for humanitarian reasons - it is pure economic.

The Arab League does not like Qaddafi
France wants to protect it's oil supply and get some leverage back into North africa
NATO then lined up as a show of solidarity with France using the civilians as a excuse
Obama has said the regime should be changed - although the deputy NSA states otherwise that we are there to only protect. The "protect" boils down to support of one side that is desired to be the winner, not to protect civilians.

 

[Broheim]

And why is the Arab League and EU not concerned with all the other dozen similar situations in Asia and Africa that are identical.

It is not for humanitarian reasons - it is pure economic.

The Arab League does not like Qaddafi
France wants to protect it's oil supply and get some leverage back into North africa
NATO then lined up as a show of solidarity with France using the civilians as a excuse
Obama has said the regime should be changed - although the deputy NSA states otherwise that we are there to only protect. The "protect" boils down to support of one side that is desired to be the winner, not to protect civilians.

so if you see someone getting mugged do you just say "fuck it, I can't stop every mugging that takes place" and go about your day?

as for the oil... I'll only say this once.
when you buy your oil from a country, you want to preserve the status quo. why would you prolong a civil war that will disrupt your oil supply, instead of just having the dictator in charge wipe out the rebellion and return things to normal? if oil was a priority you wouldn't get involved and hope for a swift massmurder so your oil would be safe.
Nobody can predict the outcome of the civil war in Libya, but before we went in there Gaddafi had pushed the rebels back and was ready for the final strike... so no this IS NOT ABOUT OIL. Infact Libya's oil production will be severely hampered for the next year or two because of Airstrikes and sabotage.

Nato didn't show up... Nato member countries showed up, big difference. NATO might take over, but for now NATO has nothing to do with Libya.

if this was about taking out Gaddafi then the UN mandate would have included groundforces, but it doesn't... for now all we can do is enforce the no-fly zone and take out Gaddafi's tanks and so on when they're shelling the cities.

 

[boomerang]

What's happening in Libya is termed a "Kinetic Military Action". It's not a war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

so if you see someone getting mugged do you just say "fuck it, I can't stop every mugging that takes place" and go about your day?

Meanwhile the Ivory Coast wonders where's our UN intervention? What do you say? Fuck it?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afri...ory-Coast-wonders-Where-s-our-UN-intervention

 

[ericlp]

is not a war, and America is taking the backseat on this one...

To call any of these ME fights a war is a joke. But the only joke is on the tax payer for footing them. This was like bring a knife to a gun fight. They don't got shit over there. A lot of old crappy shit (hand me down) guns and planes from other countries that they didn't want. Mostly from us! Tons of cash for us so we could support our new toys. We might as well have installed LoJack system in them all and pressed a deactivate button and watched all the hardware blow up or crash land. I mean, everything we sold to them the weakness's were well documented. C'mon how stupid can you get?

The only reason we are there is for oil (resources) and to somehow justify why we need another aircraft carrier and another 500 stealth bombers. Sheesh, let's keep the sheeple thinking we need this shit and justify spending 70% of your tax dollar on it so the top 3% can get even more RICHER!

Oh... what the fuck else did you want to know?

 

[JSt0rm]

You fools can come up with any rationalization for war as long as the president is on your team, huh?

I love that this issue has you melting down. hahaha.

 

[Broheim]

Meanwhile the Ivory Coast wonders where's our UN intervention? What do you say? Fuck it?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afri...ory-Coast-wonders-Where-s-our-UN-intervention

the situation in Ivory Coast requires ground forces, that takes a bit more debating and planning (the UN is generally quite sluggish), I personally hope we do intervene down there...

but you talk like the UN have never intervened before..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_peacekeeping_missions
the reason why you don't hear much about it is simply because the U.S. have almost no troops deployed in UN missions.

 

[werepossum]

Meanwhile the Ivory Coast wonders where's our UN intervention? What do you say? Fuck it?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afri...ory-Coast-wonders-Where-s-our-UN-intervention

The answer to this question is apparently "France", as is common with the UN. If they can convince France to intervene, chances are we'll show up leading a UN mission. Otherwise, sorry but our dance card is full for the foreseeable future.

 

[Munky]

What a good Samaritan you are! Get your head out of the sand.

You wanna be a "good" warmongering Samaritan, then go fight yourself. The American people didn't volunteer to fight and die in every foreign hellhole on earth.

 

[BoberFett]

I love that this issue has you melting down. hahaha.

You have a pretty weak definition of meltdown. A warm stick of butter seems to have you running for the hills.

 

[bfdd]

South Korea and China will deal with N. Korea, with American "support". In all honesty, I think our relationship with Eastern Asia would improve through a group effort against North Korea.

 

[JSt0rm]

You have a pretty weak definition of meltdown. A warm stick of butter seems to have you running for the hills.

By meltdown I mean repeating the same tired argument in every thread.

 

[Broheim]

The only reason we are there is for oil (resources) and to somehow justify why we need another aircraft carrier and another 500 stealth bombers. Sheesh, let's keep the sheeple thinking we need this shit and justify spending 70% of your tax dollar on it so the top 3% can get even more RICHER!

Oh... what the fuck else did you want to know?

sigh

as for the oil... I'll only say this once.
when you buy your oil from a country, you want to preserve the status quo. why would you prolong a civil war that will disrupt your oil supply, instead of just having the dictator in charge wipe out the rebellion and return things to normal? if oil was a priority you wouldn't get involved and hope for a swift massmurder so your oil would be safe.
Nobody can predict the outcome of the civil war in Libya, but before we went in there Gaddafi had pushed the rebels back and was ready for the final strike... so no this IS NOT ABOUT OIL. Infact Libya's oil production will be severely hampered for the next year or two because of Airstrikes and sabotage.

as for military spending, you do realise that the US military have been cutting costs for quite a while now, lowering expectations, cancelling projects etc. etc.

and without getting into a long discussion of economics (of which I can see from your post you have no real education/knowledge of) I will say this, the government investing money benefits the entire society.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Meanwhile the Ivory Coast wonders where's our UN intervention? What do you say? Fuck it?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afri...ory-Coast-wonders-Where-s-our-UN-intervention

Oil is worth more than cocoa, I though everyone knew that.

 

[bfdd]

broheim, you got this fucked up. we're trying to get rid of ghaddafi to secure the oil. the west made the mistake of running their mouths off against ghaddafi because they thought the rebels were going to win, which would help secure the oil once a new government sprung up because well we backed the winners. now ghaddafi had turned it around on the rebels and is/was actually winning, we had egg on our face, so we went in there to secure that shit and wipe out the side we designated the opponent of the west.

 

[BoberFett]

By meltdown I mean repeating the same tired argument in every thread.

I can see why you're a Democrat. You don't even understand the meanings of commonplace words.

 

[Broheim]

the "west" didn't "run their mouths off" until the UN mandate was well under way...

 

[bfdd]

the "west" didn't "run their mouths off" until the UN mandate was well under way...

... really? because Hilary was out in front of the UN saying Ghaddafi has to go before any mandate was being written up. It was almost a fucking month ago she said that ffs.

 

[Broheim]

... really? because Hilary was out in front of the UN saying Ghaddafi has to go before any mandate was being written up. It was almost a fucking month ago she said that ffs.

the US buys no oil from Libya, so I don't see where the oil comes into the picture

 

[bfdd]

the US buys no oil from Libya, so I don't see where the oil comes into the picture

It's not for us. I already knew that as well. France on the other hand...

 

[DucatiMonster696]

the US buys no oil from Libya, so I don't see where the oil comes into the picture

You're right we don't, we also didn't push for the use of force either as it was the Euros (mainly France but England as well) who wanted military action. This action is being done at the behest of Euros (again mainly the French) who do have interests and concerns in the region (North Africa). Thus the mistake people are making in this conversation is attributing our action as a directly linked self-serving action (its more indirectly linked with aiding the French) instead of the actual point that we are instead basically doing the dirty work for the French for some odd reason. Odd because France decried our actions in Iraq but when it comes to Libya they have no issues it seems meddling in Libya and asking us for support.