Why are we even involved in Libia?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Then you can take your bitchy whining elsewhere

Pssst. I'm not the one whining about the US being the world's police or our involvement in Libya.

Your knee-jerking responses are making you look like even more of an idiot than usual. Keep it up though. Your kinda crazy is always good for a laugh or two, if nothing else.

 

[Munky]

Pssst. I'm not the one whining about the US being the world's police or our involvement in Libya.

Your knee-jerking responses are making you look like even more of an idiot than usual. Keep it up though. Your kinda crazy is always good for a laugh or two, if nothing else.

I'm not the one spouting ridiculous world police idiocy either. Don't you have more idiots to convert to your side? Try trolling some other forums.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

lol. You've gone from making little sense to making no sense at all. Keep up swinging wildly like some angry retard though. Like I said before, it good for a laugh or two...until I realize I'm laughing at a retard and then feel a bit sorry for them because they just can't help themselves.

 

[Munky]

Then you should learn how to read, maybe then you won't be so clueless. In fact, crawling from that rock you've been living under will do you some good.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I'm still laughing at you.

 

[werepossum]

News reports today that the rebels have retaken Brega and are gathering steam as they advance west. Since we've taken a side, this is excellent news for us as it virtually has to indicate that Kaddafi's military is at least partially defecting and offers us hope that we will not need to commit NATO troops to avoid a stalemate or retreating with our collective figurative tail between our legs.

 

[Genx87]

News reports today that the rebels have retaken Brega and are gathering steam as they advance west. Since we've taken a side, this is excellent news for us as it virtually has to indicate that Kaddafi's military is at least partially defecting and offers us hope that we will not need to commit NATO troops to avoid a stalemate or retreating with our collective figurative tail between our legs.

Until the rebels take retribution on the old regime supporters right? Or will we turn a blind eye on our own "humanitarian" mission?

This will end badly.

 

[Munky]

I'm still laughing at you.

That's because your head is so far up your ass, you ran out of shit to regurgitate, and now sound like a broken record. Pathetic...

 

[werepossum]

Until the rebels take retribution on the old regime supporters right? Or will we turn a blind eye on our own "humanitarian" mission?

This will end badly.

We will certainly turn a blind eye (albeit with a wagging finger) to the rebels taking retribution on the old regime supports. To me, not ending badly involves no Americans or other Westerns being killed or maimed, Libyans obtaining a representative democratic republic, and our deployment ending. I am relatively unconcerned with the fate of those who supported one of the worst dictators in Africa (and that's a pretty freaking high bar!)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So has a consensus been reached? lol.

 

[Genx87]

We will certainly turn a blind eye (albeit with a wagging finger) to the rebels taking retribution on the old regime supports. To me, not ending badly involves no Americans or other Westerns being killed or maimed, Libyans obtaining a representative democratic republic, and our deployment ending. I am relatively unconcerned with the fate of those who supported one of the worst dictators in Africa (and that's a pretty freaking high bar!)

So allowing the rebels to mow down unarmed people is ok? But Gaddafi's troops doing the same is bad? This is one of the reasons we are viewed with such contempt in a lot of the world. What do we really know about these "rebels"? I have been hearing AQ is getting boots on the ground helping these "rebels". The irony is just too much for me to stand right now. If that is true our resources enabling AQ to take Libya. /facepalm

 

[werepossum]

So allowing the rebels to mow down unarmed people is ok? But Gaddafi's troops doing the same is bad? This is one of the reasons we are viewed with such contempt in a lot of the world. What do we really know about these "rebels"? I have been hearing AQ is getting boots on the ground helping these "rebels". The irony is just too much for me to stand right now. If that is true our resources enabling AQ to take Libya. /facepalm

I wouldn't say allowing rebels to mow down unarmed people is okay, I'm just acknowledging that to some degree that's what's going to happen. And I don't have a huge problem with that, given that once the people revolt, innocents and the losing side alike are going to be killed. If we HAVE to be involved - and I don't think we do except that Great Britain and France are asking it, and we owe the former and want to establish a better relationship with the latter - then I'd prefer to be on the side against the dictator, even if the results are not particularly to our liking. Economically I'm all about maximizing America's best interests, but I'm not nearly as supportive of supporting (or failing to oppose) dictators. I suppose one can make a good case for it for dictators like Mubarrak, who do things we want (like not attacking Israel every decade), but that's hardly the case for Qadaffi. (Running out of spellings for that clown. )

 

[IGBT]

heavy european oil interest in and off shore in libya.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That's because your head is so far up your ass, you ran out of shit to regurgitate, and now sound like a broken record. Pathetic...

Let's see. The US is in Libya bombing the crap out of Gadaffi Duck's troops with help from some countries who wouldn't have gotten involved unless the US, at least initially, took the lead role, and I'm the one with my head up my ass?

Yeah, I'm still laughing at you, fool. Your blindered, spasmodic-patella denial is a fucking riot.

 

[zinfamous]

hmmmmm, Labia.

 

[her209]

So has a consensus been reached? lol.

By Congress. No. They're still waiting to see how the operation goes first. If it goes badly, they're going to be against it. If it goes well, well they were for it from the beginning. They just wanted clarification, but they were always for it.

 

[sunzt]

So allowing the rebels to mow down unarmed people is ok? But Gaddafi's troops doing the same is bad? This is one of the reasons we are viewed with such contempt in a lot of the world. What do we really know about these "rebels"? I have been hearing AQ is getting boots on the ground helping these "rebels". The irony is just too much for me to stand right now. If that is true our resources enabling AQ to take Libya. /facepalm

FWIW, rebel leaders have offered ghadaffi troops amnesty if they defect. They tried to enter Ghadaffi's hometown Sirte when they saw a white flag from ghadaffi supporters. When the rebels approached that flag went down and rockets and machine guns from Sirte replaced it. Rebels retreated because they were unarmed. Also, supposedly, rebels said they won't attack civilians.

Just stating what I read from BBC Libya stream.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I have been hearing AQ is getting boots on the ground helping these "rebels". The irony is just too much for me to stand right now. If that is true our resources enabling AQ to take Libya. /facepalm

Yeah, it was widely reported this weekend that AQ is very strong in Eastern Libya, where the 'rebels' are from. Doesn't sound good, but we'll have to wait and see.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

FWIW, rebel leaders have offered ghadaffi troops amnesty if they defect. They tried to enter Ghadaffi's hometown Sirte when they saw a white flag from ghadaffi supporters. When the rebels approached that flag went down and rockets and machine guns from Sirte replaced it. Rebels retreated because they were unarmed. Also, supposedly, rebels said they won't attack civilians.

Just stating what I read from BBC Libya stream.

Hopefully the rebels will show the promised restraint. However, Genx87's point - that this is choosing a side on which to fight rather than some purely humanitarian mission as it is touted - is in my opinion valid. I still support the mission, but the whole humanitarian thing is but a thin veneer, a fiction to which supporters agree to nod. Massacres in Libya are nothing compared to those in the Congo or in Sudan.

Have to admit too that I do not understand the rationale behind it. As far as I can tell, Ghaddafi Duck (Lord I love that man's name) is a quite reliable source of oil, so I'm not sure why the Europe nations' leaders suddenly decided that he must go. I'm trusting that they had good and valid reasons though, since Obama followed them.

 

[Genx87]

FWIW, rebel leaders have offered ghadaffi troops amnesty if they defect. They tried to enter Ghadaffi's hometown Sirte when they saw a white flag from ghadaffi supporters. When the rebels approached that flag went down and rockets and machine guns from Sirte replaced it. Rebels retreated because they were unarmed. Also, supposedly, rebels said they won't attack civilians.

Just stating what I read from BBC Libya stream.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5238438.story

Right...I really expect there to be no retributions by these people. I am just curious why we would allow one side to seek these retributions. In other words poking holes in this ridiculous notion this is a humanitarian mission. Clearly as we wont do shit in other nations that have had far worse atrocities.

 

[Fern]

By Congress. No. They're still waiting to see how the operation goes first. If it goes badly, they're going to be against it. If it goes well, well they were for it from the beginning. They just wanted clarification, but they were always for it.

Yes, and I've been thinking something similar about why Obama has waited so long to make his big speech on this (tonight).

First, he himself may not know what the objective is. Secondly, he got to sit back and watch everybody debate it. He can see what lines of 'objectives' were heavily criticized, and what 'objectives' were better received.

So far we've had the 'Qaddafy must go' objective, the 'fair fight' objective, the 'humanitarian' objective, the 'Arab League asked us' objective.

These have all received substantial criticism/questioning (e.g., why not help in Syria if we help in Libya/where is the line drawn? Etc.)

This weekend Hillary came up with another one: We must help keep the 'Arab Spring' going. This argument assumes that the other countries with uprisings will become democracies (IMO, very optimistic) and that our attacking Qaddafy somehow encourages more of these uprisings. The latter I find potentially problematic. It seems to rest on the notion that others will feel emboldened to rebel, presumably because we will help them against gov forces trying to quell the uprising. We're gonna look pretty bad if people believe they can depend on us, then (as often the case) we fail to show. We'll be open to all kinds of criticism.

Of course, if we do show up in even more countries to fight as in Libya, I don't it's going to sit well here in the USA.

In any case, we'll know tonight what reason he'll choose (assuming he doesn't go all "Washington doublespeak and vague' on us.)

Fern

 

[RabidMongoose]

Until the rebels take retribution on the old regime supporters right? Or will we turn a blind eye on our own "humanitarian" mission?

This will end badly.

If not the rebels, then the French or the British. They would have no qualms about cleansing the portions of the population that oppose the European agenda.

 

[Fern]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5238438.story
-snip-

Ruh roh...

So the side we're supporting is now the one committing the atrocities?

Fustercluck?

Fern

 

[sunzt]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5238438.story

Right...I really expect there to be no retributions by these people. I am just curious why we would allow one side to seek these retributions. In other words poking holes in this ridiculous notion this is a humanitarian mission. Clearly as we wont do shit in other nations that have had far worse atrocities.

The treatment at that detainment center is definitely a step (or probably flight of stairs) above what ghadaffi's are like. They let journalists in and take pictures.... no one (so far) looks like they were tortured from the looks of it, and they ARE alive... POWs really. Lets not forget that these people had 40+ years of rule under Ghadaffi's brutal dictatorship, so it's not like they're all gonna have western standards of treatment like a US prison overnight.

 

[sunzt]

Seems like the rebel leaders are more secular Islamic than fundamental Islamic "westerners with Libyan roots and western roots.."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

#
2013: Bernard-Henri Levy avoids saying whether or not he told French President Nicolas Sarkozy to recognise the rebel Transitional National Council as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people: "I don't know if I told him. But it was my opinion. When I came back from Benghazi, it was crystal clear for me that the only legitimate representatives of Libya today, and of the whole of Libya, was these guys. They are westerners with Libyan roots and western roots, and are bridges between England, France, America and Libya. They are democrats and secular, and opposed to any sort of terrorism."
#
2007: The French philosopher, Bernard Henri-Levy, tells the BBC about the Libyan rebels: "I met the rebels in Benghazi, I met them Brega, I met them in Bayda. I spoke at length with the main figures with the Transitional National Council. Firstly, they stand for secular Islam, and not fundamental Islam. Among the 11 whom I know, and are known, no-one belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood or anything like that. Secondly, they are favourable to a sort of democracy. It will not be a Churchillian democracy overnight, of course, but it will be a step forward. This step forward, this move to democracy, in a country that has been broken by 42 years of dictatorship, will be a blessing. Thirdly, I think they represent all of Libya. Inside the council, you have members who come from tribes faithful to Gaddafi, and even the tribe of Gaddafi himself."