So why are the Lybian rebels so great and wonderful ?

[SAWYER]

Just a few years ago the Lockerbe bomber got a hero's welcome and I have seen some graphic footage of some of the stuff these animals are doing. So do we honestly know what kind of mess will form with all these different rebels/rebel groups after the dust settles? I don't think we have a clue who we are propping up

 

[feralkid]

Newt transformations, for starters.

Often followed by the appearance of a Maenad.

 

[bfdd]

Just a few years ago the Lockerbe bomber got a hero's welcome and I have seen some graphic footage of some of the stuff these animals are doing. So do we honestly know what kind of mess will form with all these different rebels/rebel groups after the dust settles? I don't think we have a clue who we have propping up

and people regret Iraq and Afghanistan lols.

 

[BoberFett]

Just a few years ago the Lockerbe bomber got a hero's welcome and I have seen some graphic footage of some of the stuff these animals are doing. So do we honestly know what kind of mess will form with all these different rebels/rebel groups after the dust settles? I don't think we have a clue who we are propping up

Because the sitting president is a Democrat. If it were a Republican, our involvement would have been called imperialism and profiteering.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because they dumped a despised Arab dictator. Simple from the Arab in the street viewpoint

 

[halik]

Pretty sure we've reserved the right to keep on bombing them even after Q is gone.

 

[Throckmorton]

Because the sitting president is a Democrat. If it were a Republican, our involvement would have been called imperialism and profiteering.

Uhh... it is. By the far right Tea Party and the far left, both of which are morally bankrupt.

BTW, you know there's a difference between starting two wars and saving civilians from a tyrant right? And yes, Bush did start the Afghanistan war. The correct response wasn't to try to exterminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban and rebuild a whole country from scratch for decades. It was probably to assassinate the leaders and somehow encourage a revolution there.

 

[trenchfoot]

Because the sitting president is a Democrat. If it were a Republican, our involvement would have been called imperialism and profiteering.

It still is, but it just so happens to be the old fashioned Euro style this time rather than the good 'ol Buckaroo brand'in knee slapp'in apple pie bake'in Yankee Manifest Destiny inspired imperialism and profiteering.

Wait till it's the Chinese folks turn at this style of foreign relations. 😉

 

[cubby1223]

Uhh... it is. By the far right Tea Party and the far left, both of which are morally bankrupt.

BTW, you know there's a difference between starting two wars and saving civilians from a tyrant right? And yes, Bush did start the Afghanistan war. The correct response wasn't to try to exterminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban and rebuild a whole country from scratch for decades. It was probably to assassinate the leaders and somehow encourage a revolution there.

Right! One was "saving civilians from a tyrant" while the others were...

Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Saving civilians from a *group* of tyrants?

Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Saving civilians from a tyrant in the name of oil? But that also applies to Libya...

What was your point again?

 

[Throckmorton]

Right! One was "saving civilians from a tyrant" while the others were...

Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Saving civilians from a *group* of tyrants?

Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Saving civilians from a tyrant in the name of oil? But that also applies to Libya...

What was your point again?

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

 

[JSt0rm]

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

Shhhh. Let the children play.

 

[cubby1223]

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

WTF are YOU talking about?

Afghanistan was to prevent Al-Qaeda from massacring huge number of civilians again.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-12/us/wikileaks.plots_1_terror-plots-wikileaks-documents?_s=PM:US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States

And what is a WMD? It is a weapon that is used to massacre a huge number of civilians. And the original sale of the Iraq war was to prevent Saddam from massacring a huge number of civilians with weapons of mass destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

How is this not obvious?

What, the difference being one announced his intentions out in public while the others did not?


If you want to continue viewing the world as it fits your personal political party likes and dislikes, we can play this game forever and ever. BoberFett is correct in his assessment.

 

[cubby1223]

You see, Throck, you *could* have gone the route and said "BTW, you know there's a difference between starting two wars and (aiding a revolt already in progress) right?"

And you would have had a point.

But instead you chose the route that basically said to others "my opinions are largely based on my personal dislike of Dubya." Which there is no actual point there.

 

[cubby1223]

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

Oh, and just because I LOVE your logic in your posts, are you suggesting that had we decided to invade and destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pre-9/11, you would have been 100% fine with that? But since it was after 9/11, now you find significant fault in it?

 

[Craig234]

Oh, and just because I LOVE your logic in your posts

Which you can't read.

, are you suggesting that had we decided to invade and destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pre-9/11, you would have been 100% fine with that? But since it was after 9/11, now you find significant fault in it?

That's not what he said, at all.

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh, and just because I LOVE your logic in your posts, are you suggesting that had we decided to invade and destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan pre-9/11, you would have been 100% fine with that? But since it was after 9/11, now you find significant fault in it?

If we had known about 9/11, we should have done the same thing we should have done after, assassinate the terrorists planning the attack. But you claimed we invaded Afghanistan to save civilians, even though it was after the fact.

 

[Throckmorton]

You see, Throck, you *could* have gone the route and said "BTW, you know there's a difference between starting two wars and (aiding a revolt already in progress) right?"

And you would have had a point.

But instead you chose the route that basically said to others "my opinions are largely based on my personal dislike of Dubya." Which there is no actual point there.

Except we didn't go to Libya to aid a revolt already in progress. We intervened to save the revolutionaries from being massacred.

Even Starfleet's prime directive allows for intervention to prevent an atrocity when people ask for help

 

[rudder]

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

Leave him be Throckmorton... the righties will claim Libya was all about oil. I mean when Clinton intervened in Rwanda to prevent 800,000 civilians from being slaughtered in 1994 was that about oil too?

 

[dabuddha]

Except we didn't go to Libya to aid a revolt already in progress. We intervened to save the revolutionaries from being massacred.

Even Starfleet's prime directive allows for intervention to prevent an atrocity when people ask for help

Ahhh there's the problem. Throck lives in a fictional world in his mind.

 

[sm625]

The rebels are not "wonderful". They serve the system that is so blatantly corrupt that you can actually see it without having to feel like a kook. Although the most heavily propagandized will still attempt to make you feel that way. It is just so obvious now that you have to have major brain damage not to see it. Or just be too dumb to care.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Just a few years ago the Lockerbe bomber got a hero's welcome and I have seen some graphic footage of some of the stuff these animals are doing. So do we honestly know what kind of mess will form with all these different rebels/rebel groups after the dust settles? I don't think we have a clue who we are propping up

You are right.

If we had some good old boys in the White House, we would have had a 3rd war on our hands. Actually - 4th; we would have invaded Egypt, then Lybia.

Wassa matta? Angry we aren't war profiteering off of some more Middle Eastern misery?

 

[SAWYER]

WTF are you talking about? The intervention in Libya was to directly prevent Qaddafi from massacring a huge number of civilians. That wasn't the case for either Afghanistan or Iraq. We retaliated against Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. The Iraq war was started based on BS about WMD.

Why are we(the world) not doing something about the worst parts of Africa?

 

[SAWYER]

You are right.

If we had some good old boys in the White House, we would have had a 3rd war on our hands. Actually - 4th; we would have invaded Egypt, then Lybia.

Wassa matta? Angry we aren't war profiteering off of some more Middle Eastern misery?

You have me mixed up with someone else

 

[Craig234]

Why are we(the world) not doing something about the worst parts of Africa?

Because in our democracy, not enough people, and not enough monied interests, are choosing to tell government they want to.

Bill Clinton is an example; he can say how 'one of his biggest regrets' (what are the others) is not acting more in Rwanda, but it was politically convenient then.

Question: which conflict has been the world's most deadly since World War 2? Answer: The Congo, with four million killed. Who knew?

Why so deadly? Largely because of the value to the western world of the natural resources there, gold, diamonds, high tech ingredients.

Meanwhile kids there are at starvation wages, exposed to mercury and danger, to obtain those products for the people making profits.

What do most here worry about? Cheap availability.

 

[airdata]

I was born in the 80's so I didn't get to see what we did w\ creating al qeada first hand... isn't this the same thing? We train them, arm them and then in 20 years we get to have them as an enemy?