For the retards: this is why.

[OCGuy]

We (the US) dont need to be doing this. This is a huge failure on Obama's part.

 

[Genx87]

Which is why we stepped in AS he was doing that?

The Iraq invasion wasn't sanctioned and not about saving civilians, play daft all you want, you might even believe it yourself but somehow, i doubt you are as fucking retarded as you pretend to be.

The Arab Union is still FULLY sanctioning this, they said so a few hours ago.

NATO is involved, the US is taking a back seat to at least three other nations, you have no targeters on ground, no aircrafts in air and all in all, you are not getting much involved in this.

I'm sure per the YEEEEHAW you think you are but you're not.

And this is really about the civilians right? Or is it about securing oil for France? If you are up in arms about the civilian toll in this where were you when a more ruthless and menancing dictator was to be taken out? Oh that is right, you were against that and still are lmao.

We(United States) shouldnt be involved at all. That means no cruise missiles. Let you fools take the fall in the Arab world when this turns to shit worse than it already has. But, since we launched cruise missiles galore we will be the ones taking the heat when a british bomber blows up a funeral or wedding.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Uh huh, or I am seeing things much better because my head isnt implanted up the democrat party and Obama's ass.

Reality can be painful. Especially when it is obvious your knight in shining armor turns out to be like the turd he replaced.

Getting into a situation happening RIGHT NOW and being sanctioned by the UN is wrong but attacking a nation while lying consistently about something used for justification since the lies didn't pan out is a good thing?

Son, just go sit in the corner in shame, you're not this daft.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And this is really about the civilians right? Or is it about securing oil for France? If you are up in arms about the civilian toll in this where were you when a more ruthless and menancing dictator was to be taken out? Oh that is right, you were against that and still are lmao.

We(United States) shouldnt be involved at all. That means no cruise missiles. Let you fools take the fall in the Arab world when this turns to shit worse than it already has. But, since we launched cruise missiles galore we will be the ones taking the heat when a british bomber blows up a funeral or wedding.

Son, France is the WRONG fucking nation, some twat wrote that on an American forum and instead of actually checking the info out they went with it, ITALY is the nation you are looking for, France buys very little Libyan oil, it just got confused by the retards since the former French foreign minister and Gaddafis family were close friends...

But you should be involved in Iraq who had done absolutely nothing to anyone at the time?

Seriously, you complain about the UN having no teeth and at the same time you don't realise that the only forces the UN have are from the member nations and you don't want to contribute?

Not too bright, are ya? Perhaps that is why you think of GW as a superior intelligent person and don't trust democrats because they will use words you don't comprehend, like intentional...

 

[bamacre]

Did you feel like i was referring to you?

According to the Laws of Moonbeam, which are quite relevant here IMHO, you were referring to yourself.

 

[Genx87]

Getting into a situation happening RIGHT NOW and being sanctioned by the UN is wrong but attacking a nation while lying consistently about something used for justification since the lies didn't pan out is a good thing?

Son, just go sit in the corner in shame, you're not this daft.

In your world if the UN says it is ok to attack a nation then all is dandy? Saddam slaughters hundreds of thousands of his own over the decades but the UN decides to not sanction an invasion for obvious reason(Oil for food scandal) and that is bad. Kadaffi slaughters a few thousand in putting down a rebellion and the UN says yes and that is good? That is all you need?

And you call me daft?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

According to the Laws of Moonbeam, which are quite relevant here IMHO, you were referring to yourself.

Libertians trolling, conservatives hating, liberals being intelligent....

Hey, this is just like real world politics!

 

[Genx87]

Son, France is the WRONG fucking nation, some twat wrote that on an American forum and instead of actually checking the info out they went with it, ITALY is the nation you are looking for, France buys very little Libyan oil, it just got confused by the retards since the former French foreign minister and Gaddafis family were close friends...

But you should be involved in Iraq who had done absolutely nothing to anyone at the time?

Seriously, you complain about the UN having no teeth and at the same time you don't realise that the only forces the UN have are from the member nations and you don't want to contribute?

Not too bright, are ya? Perhaps that is why you think of GW as a superior intelligent person and don't trust democrats because they will use words you don't comprehend, like intentional...

I couldnt give a shit if it is leichtenstein. The simple fact is the United States shouldnt be getting involved with a European issue. Obama utilizing our military for this is fucking stupid.

 

[bamacre]

Libertians trolling, conservatives hating, liberals being intelligent....

Hey, this is just like real world politics!

If you'd take your safety helmet off, you might notice some conservatives here cheering Obama, some liberals being disgusted with him, and us libertarians, well, we're just being consistent.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In your world if the UN says it is ok to attack a nation then all is dandy? Saddam slaughters hundreds of thousands of his own over the decades but the UN decides to not sanction an invasion for obvious reason(Oil for food scandal) and that is bad. Kadaffi slaughters a few thousand in putting down a rebellion and the UN says yes and that is good? That is all you need?

And you call me daft?

Yes, international law with the support of the civilians(it's required to pass in the UN council) is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, if you don't know why then let me remind you that the people in Iraq and Afghanistan still don't want us there.


Saddam slaughters tenths of thousands (let's not get carried away here) and fifteen years later we decide, hey, we need to stop what happened way back then and invade!

This is about external force to stop the civilian casualites, it's not about an invasion, it's not about anything more than ACTUALLY helping a nation.

Last time the US did that was... NEVER.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

the LOT of you are fucking retards.

You just now figured this out?

Yet you keep posting?

 

[sunzt]

Did you feel like i was referring to you?

I'm just saying that if you're trying to have at least a somewhat reasonably serious discussion or debate with someone calling them a f'kin retard off the bat doesn't help convince them.

 

[airdata]

OP : Why you mad though?

And how do you know there's not more to it?

Why are we in Libya but not doing anything in Bahrain where they're gunning down civilians left and right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I couldnt give a shit if it is leichtenstein. The simple fact is the United States shouldnt be getting involved with a European issue. Obama utilizing our military for this is fucking stupid.

Ah, i wish we had thought like that when it came to Afghanistan.... Or in our case, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Should have said no to the lot of it. Instead, we went in first, to clear the zones before the US dared send in ground troops.

Pathetic nation of cowards only caring about their own arses.

 

[irishScott]

Ah, i wish we had thought like that when it came to Afghanistan.... Or in our case, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Should have said no to the lot of it. Instead, we went in first, to clear the zones before the US dared send in ground troops.

Pathetic nation of cowards only caring about their own arses.

ROFL yes, because the US has done nothing for other nations during Humanitarian crises. It was the glorious altruistic UK that had dozens of SAR helicopters in the air less than an hour after the Tsunami in 2004, and it was the UK that provided more aid to Haiti than the entire UN.

And IMO the Brits should have said no to Iraq, might have made the idiot in chief less eager to go in.

 

[OutHouse]

Pathetic nation of cowards only caring about their own arses.

Fuck off limey. We give more foreign aid/charity world wide than that shithole island ever will.

 

[Broheim]

Tell me, why aren't the Europeans elsewhere in the world? Again, it's all for European national interests. Oil, refugees, and colonialist state.

European nations have been taking part in UN and NATO missions just as much (way more in UN peacekeeping missions) than the U.S.

hell look at these numbers http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2011/feb11_1.pdf

the EU gives out more 3rd world aid in GNP per capita than the U.S.... and how many refugees does the U.S. take in?

you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, then again I don't even expect you to even point out europe on a map, meh /shrug

 

[RabidMongoose]

Son, France is the WRONG fucking nation, some twat wrote that on an American forum and instead of actually checking the info out they went with it, ITALY is the nation you are looking for, France buys very little Libyan oil, it just got confused by the retards since the former French foreign minister and Gaddafis family were close friends...

But you should be involved in Iraq who had done absolutely nothing to anyone at the time?

Seriously, you complain about the UN having no teeth and at the same time you don't realise that the only forces the UN have are from the member nations and you don't want to contribute?

Not too bright, are ya? Perhaps that is why you think of GW as a superior intelligent person and don't trust democrats because they will use words you don't comprehend, like intentional...

It's about securing overall oil supply. The US didn't get most of its oil from Iraq either. France is still a major purchaser of Libyan oil. In fact, Europe purchases most of the Libyan oil.

This is obviously all about securing oil with the added bonus of refugees and instituting a colonial state.

 

[Broheim]

Fuck off limey. We give more foreign aid/charity world wide than that shithole island ever will.

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006_ODA_GNI.png guess these numbers must be wrong...

 

[RabidMongoose]

European nations have been taking part in UN and NATO missions just as much (way more in UN peacekeeping missions) than the U.S.

hell look at these numbers http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2011/feb11_1.pdf

the EU gives out more 3rd world aid in GNP per capita than the U.S.... and how many refugees does the U.S. take in?

you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, then again I don't even expect you to even point out europe on a map, meh /shrug

That is all nothing compared to this action. Again, why isn't Europe going into so many other countries like this? How come Europe doesn't fix up the entire global mess it made through its colonial enterprises? Again, this is all about oil and how Europe depends on Libyan oil, with the added bonus of refugees and a colony.

Moreover, you're only looking at one source of aid.