Looks like Canada is going as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12781682
Good luck to the pilots :thumbsup:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12781682
Good luck to the pilots :thumbsup:
davmat787
Diamond Member
- Nov 30, 2010
- 5,512
- 24
- 76
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Its a no fly zone. It's not anything more. It has international support. I would like some to answer my question. How are Libya and Iraq the same thing?
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
I think the point most Iraq war supporters were trying to make (and I am one) is that our national interests were at stake in Iraq. We secured a stable oil supply to keep fuel prices low and the market relatively shock free. By going into Libya, we're not acting in our interests, we're acting in the interests of the French and to a lesser degree the British, who get a substantial amount of their oil from Libya.
There have been plenty of genocides and humanitarian crisis over the past decade in which we've not gotten involved. Why this one? Who gives a fuck if every single last rebel in Libya gets shot in the dick? What does it matter to us, and more importantly, is it worth risking US servicemember's lives over? I think not.
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
nobody dodged your question because it doesn't fucking matter. the US needs to stay the hell out period.
Strawman waves hello
How about the Shiites that got crush during an uprising against Saddam? Can't they say hi to you?
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
How many wars are too many wars?
What are we going to be forced to give up here, to
fund wars there? All social security? Triple our taxes?
Sacrifice our savings and retirement security?
How many wars does it take to destroy a nation?
Why do presidents love the power of starting war?
If they are bored, can"t they just redo the oval office? Maybe new drapes?
Ps. Why was the US not so interested in the Rwanda blood shed, yet we are all over the middle east blood shed?
Maybe...... OIL?
What are we going to be forced to give up here, to
fund wars there? All social security? Triple our taxes?
Sacrifice our savings and retirement security?
How many wars does it take to destroy a nation?
Why do presidents love the power of starting war?
If they are bored, can"t they just redo the oval office? Maybe new drapes?
Ps. Why was the US not so interested in the Rwanda blood shed, yet we are all over the middle east blood shed?
Maybe...... OIL?
Last edited:
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
What part of "Iraq was stable with no rebellion, not in a state of war" was unclear? If you can recommend a simpler, more clear way to rewrite that I'd be happy to do so.
If you guys are going to try and draw parallels with Iraq at least get your history within the ballpark. Oh lookey what I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
See "U.S. non-intervention controversy"
Why would the US be interested in that? The UN was all over that one...after talking and condemning and jabber jawing until there was almost no one was left to slaughter, they even sent UN peacekeepers, well, until the UN couldn't muster up 14 helicopters - out of the entire UN - for them.
As for presidents, air war is guaranteed PR for them, they can't lose because of our technology. US should have said, we vote Yes, now, go do it rest of UN. Hahaha....shocked and stunned faces from the UN...Wawawa do you mean we go do it, what we really meant was, we appear to offer meaningful help, but really you the US do it!...and then we can badmouth you when you mistakenly kill civilians..can we re-vote, can we re-vote?!!?!?
O'Bummer is thinking 2012 elections, figured he'd get a cheap boost...
Chuck
So what you are saying is that Iraq being "stable" (Under the iron grip of a murderous dictator who had enough loyal security forces to lock down his nation and kill or imprison everyone and anyone who got in the way) that it can't be compared to Libya which is on the verge of smashing all rebel resistance?
Yup gotta love that point you keep harping about over and over again. If Gaddafi accomplishes the same style of "stability" as Saddam (even under a UN "no fly zone") your gonna change your tune right?
Generator
Senior member
- Mar 4, 2005
- 793
- 0
- 0
Smart, last time Canadians were on the ground they were bombed by coked up American pilots.
This should be a good opportunity for Europe to show some competence in the war game. Bush and his league of extraordinary neocons really lowered the bar...
Does Great Britain still have an air force or navy? How many Harrier jump jets are still in operation?
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Exactly yes that is what I meant by stable.
If the UN fails here, and by God it looks like they are doing their damndest, then Libya will be under an Iraq situation of worse oppression than before.
If you want to compare iraq to Libya have the Western air force sit on its hands for another few days (or less). By then Gadhafi will have finished sweeping up most of the resistance and lock the country down.
I wonder what the hell the UN is doing now. They waited so long and it's now been 36 hours since resolution. There were assets in the area already, plans drawn up. Gadhafi has spent the last day throwing more weight at it and is now at the gates if not already into Benghazi. If he ends up with total control over these cities air support will be meaningless, it will be too late.
If planes are not up in the air bombarding the crap out of him today it will be too late. It may already be too late. What could have been a number of sorties and missiles before may already require boots on the ground and a total cluster fvck. Then you can more easily compare it to Iraq.
His artillery, planes, tanks, trucks all en route in the dessert to these rebel towns are like shooting fish in a barrel. Now if they're in the city? Forget it, you waited too damn long.
Hey Obama
This is what you should say to the Republicans calling for the U.S. to start a new war in Libya:
Our ass is broke and you broke it
You want a new war you go there personally and take out Ghadafi
This is what you should say to the Republicans calling for the U.S. to start a new war in Libya:
Our ass is broke and you broke it
You want a new war you go there personally and take out Ghadafi
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
LOL! Now THAT'S funny! Look, I think the European militaries are already training for this encounter:
Last edited:
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
I'm conservative, but I was against the war in Iraq back in the early 2000s an am against it still to this day. The problem I have is that people seem to conveniently pick and choose what are "humanitarian" causes and what not, when the true reason has nothing to do with that and has everything to do with what benefits us -- in the case of Iraq, economic reasons. Getting rid of Saddam was just a positive side effect, though with the way things played out, I wonder if we would've been better off just leaving him in power.
If you're going to seriously use the "Saddam was a murderous dictator who had to be removed!" argument, then I'd ask why we haven't removed a multitude of other dictators who were just as dangerous (or more so) than him. Kim Jong Il HAS WMDs and murders his people as Saddam did. Why haven't we taken him out yet?
We need to stay away from Libya. The impotent UN has already "debated" the issue into irrelevance, as there isn't much a no-fly zone will do at this stage. Let Europe handle this situation instead of writing the check with their mouths and having the US cash it with our military.
Last edited:
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Perhaps for the same reason I can save up money to buy a new Honda Civic but not buy a new Bugatti Veyron. Differences in scope.
If the world stays out of Libya it should just completely stop pretending it gives a sh*t about anybody else because if the UN, US, etc. cannot step in here it never has any moral justification to do so.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
The reason we haven't taken Kim out is because 1) There is no real economic benefit for us 2) Given #1, the risk is too high for such a minimal benefit.
I like the example someone else gave. If the Saudi people revolt and face a similar response from their monarchy, are we going to even entertain helping the people? I think we all know the answer there and I agree with you -- people should stop pretending that we care about the civilians in these nations. The UN is the worst offender in this regard, IMO.
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Depends if they get the oil wells under control first. Honestly.
I like to think the UN cares about the people here and I do genuinely believe it does to an extent. I don't know if that's all of it. Apparently much of Libya's oil production is on the east and I am positive this has been brought up in meetings. It's very safe to say that if Gadhafi is left to kill everyone that oil will come back online faster, reverting to status quo than if there is UN intervention, though, so perhaps altruism is influencing after all.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Rebels say Gaddafi forces enter Benghazi
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-east-idUSTRE72I1AD20110319?pageNumber=2
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-east-idUSTRE72I1AD20110319?pageNumber=2
Apparently, the rebels shot down their one and only fighter jet. Are those monkeys on the ground with SA-7 missiles going to shoot down NATO jets next? Those NATO pilots better be flying above 15,00 ft.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter