Why are we even involved in Libia?

[Genx87]

That makes them brighter then the GOP. %Jewish < %Born in Kenya

With this reply it also makes them brighter than you.

 

[werepossum]

with this reply it also makes them brighter than you.

lol +1

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, Stewart nailed it with his usual panache.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-31-2011/america-at-not-war---libyan-rebel-forces

 

[Fern]

Last night I heard NATO felt the need to warn the rebels they would be bombed if they killed "citizens".

What started as weird just gets wierder.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

LOL, Stewart nailed it with his usual panache.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-31-2011/america-at-not-war---libyan-rebel-forces

Dont worry, soon we will have ground forces fightning next to them to level the playing field.

This mission is a god damned debacle.

 

[BoberFett]

Remember, it's not a war. It is a kinetic military action.

Though I don't really want to get bogged down in details, like what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

[bamacre]

This (not a) war just needs some...

 

[Genx87]

Who didnt see this coming? So these rebels cause is so well recieved they not only need our air support but most likely ground troops as well.

Christ we just cant stop can we?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

 

[llee]

can someone please run a spell check on the title of this thread. it's just embarrassing.

 

[zinfamous]

Who wouldn't want to be involved in Labia?

 

[zinfamous]

The essence of good humor, biting with a streak of truth.

haha, wow.

awesome comment:

wow newt, you gotta be pretty wrong to make rand look right by comparison

 

[Doppel]

Libya has/is becoming a cluster. Why Gadhafi is still being allowed to move around is beyond me. He is the head of military that NATO is actively engaging. he is a target. He has a storied history of oppression and murder and terrorist support. I don't understand why he's NOT a target.

And now the guy who led it until NATO came in even opening the possibility of troops on the ground:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

 

[matt0611]

Who didnt see this coming? So these rebels cause is so well recieved they not only need our air support but most likely ground troops as well.

Christ we just cant stop can we?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

Heard this as well.
I think the american people will be quite pissed off if this happens IMO.

 

[bamacre]

Heard this as well.
I think the american people will be quite pissed off if this happens IMO.

Democrats should be more focused on what their own man is doing, less on what idiots like Palin are doing. This man has been a complete disappointment, a disaster, and yet he's a fucking shoe-in for 2012.

 

[dennilfloss]

Has our mandate changed without me noticing it in the news? Much as I dislike the Ghadaffi regime, what does destroying tanks have to do with enforcing a no-fly zone as per the UN resolution? Seems we are now actively helping the rebels on the ground rather than simply providing a level fighting ground by removing the Libyan air power advantage. If the allies mandate/position has changed, let's make it politically clear that this is our choice and then finish the job of regime change with quick & extreme prejudice. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/09/us-libya-nato-tanks-idUSTRE7382X520110409

 

[Fern]

Has our mandate changed....
-snip-

Personally, I suspect, at least as far as most the Obama admin is concerned, when they started this they knew it was 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. Obama annouced that Qaddaffi HAD to go. Then, somewhat inexplicitly also announced 'no ground troops', so if the rebels can't get the job done which poison will he choose?

Being wrong about Khadafy staying (and trying to deal with that mofo and his expected terroristic retaliations), or no ground troops?

If we get hit by a terrorist attack, particularly from Qadaffi in retaliatiuon, the politics are bad.

If we send in ground troops, the polictics are bad.

Secret help to the rebels and against Khadafi? I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happening, or in the works.

Fern

 

[dennilfloss]

I'm taking about Canada's involvement. This is surprising on our part. We tend to be sticklers for following UN resolutions to a tee because we're law-and-order types, not cowboys who shoot from the hip. Surely the UN must have approved this or Canada would resign its command of the allied force.

 

[Craig234]

can someone please run a spell check on the title of this thread. it's just embarrassing.

Good thing I didn't reply to what it first looks like, 'why are we involved in labia?'

 

[Craig234]

Democrats should be more focused on what their own man is doing, less on what idiots like Palin are doing. This man has been a complete disappointment, a disaster, and yet he's a fucking shoe-in for 2012.

Whatever his flaws, he's far better than any of the current Republicans and their agenda.

And protecting civilians from slaughter like this, I like.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[Fern]

Whatever his flaws, he's far better than any of the current Republicans and their agenda.

And protecting civilians from slaughter like this, I like.

So slaughtering some people is 'good' if it's to save some other people?

Was there a trial to condemn the 'bad people', or does that not matter if it's your guys?

What makes you sooo sure the 'good guys' aren't LIFG?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Heard this as well.
I think the american people will be quite pissed off if this happens IMO.

Obama said the US will not use combat troops introduced to fight this - only a small chance to aid evacuation, IIRC. Nothing has changed, the general is stating his opinion.

 

[Atheus]

So slaughtering some people is 'good' if it's to save some other people?

If one group of people are oppressing the other, and the rebels are begging for help? I reckon so. Yep.

In related news...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13046127

...come on people... yes Germany, Italy, etc I'm talking to you. We're all supposed to be becoming a union you know. Lets see some jets.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This pathetic show of weakness by the UK and the French is oddly reassuring. It's good to know that Europe is so pathetically weak that it can't even do much in Libya. Too bad for the rebels though, but I guess that's what you get when you're now depending on a part of the world that is becoming more and more irrelevant and useless every day.

 

[Fern]

From the outset I've found it curious Obama did not put his alleged formidable speaking skills to work here. During and after the election his supporters claimed he would smooth over many international problems by meeting with and speaking to foreign leaders.

Yet, he moved to attack Khaddafy without so much as an effort to negotiate. Why? And why does no one speak of this?

A couple of days ago the Arab League (or whatever it's actually called) brokered a cease-fire with Qadddafy's side accepting. But the rebels refused and said no deal unless it required Qaddafy's removal.

Why did Obama not intervene to get the rebels to accept? Or stated objective was to stop the (unfair) fighting. A ceasefire would have accomplished that. Our objective appears to be other than that publicly stated.

We're now also hearing, despite claims to the contrary, that our Air Force has been flying sorties all along (after NATO supposedly took over).

Fern