no fly zone over libya

[Solkern]

un finally agrees to inact a no fly zone
to late?
thoughts?

I'd post a link but in posting this from my phone.

[IorakeWarhammer]

too late for what?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23741

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23657

[NocturnalRob]

too late for what?
For you to not fuck up this thread.

[WRoss]

Pro Ghadafi forces just issued a cease fire order. As for if it is too late, we'll have the French military decide.

[WRoss]

And...they cancel the cease fire due to the UN refusing to remove the no-fly zone. If the Egyptian resolutions that were just purposed are effective at beginning a democratic regime, Ghadafi might have to consider that half of the (pre-war) population was Egyptian. Considering that Libyans mainly have identified their national identity with their tribal allegiance instead of the Libyan nation and the Eastern region is largely dominated by one tribe, there could very easily be a new country or Egyptian annexation of the oil rich Eastern region. They have Western support, vast wealth in oil, and a clear desire to participate in the reformation of Political and National processes in the region. What the don't have is a military and it is highly unlikely that Western powers would put forces on the ground. Eastern. Libya needs a military and Egypt needs wealth to rebuild their nation. Most importanty, China will likely support any group which wants peace and stability in this region in order to protect their oil interests.

Just my two cents.

[NocturnalRob]

And...they cancel the cease fire due to the UN refusing to remove the no-fly zone.
Where'd you see this? On my phone. Can't find anything.

[WRoss]

Ghadafi called me or CNN.

[EasternBrand]

Pro Ghadafi forces just issued a cease fire order. As for if it is too late, we'll have the French military decide.

Sadly, they surrendered to an Algerian taxi driver in Paris already.

[Gan]

New French issued rifles are already on ebay: never fired, dropped once, near perfect condition with minor wear marks and scratches.

[ClydeR]

It's not just a no-fly zone. It authorizes force, short of occupation, necessary to protect the civilian population. We can blow up stuff other than air defense systems. UN member countries can take the action individually or jointly.


“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;



blah, blah, blah

“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

More... (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution)

Libya has the ninth or tenth largest oil reserves in the world. It's long overdue that the United States got involved militarily in an oil producing country.

[WRoss]

They have the largest oil supply in Africa with a confirmed 40 (or was it 400?) billion barrels. Their unconfirmed supply is expected to be somewhere around half that, but could be as much as. Their oil supply has been mostly run by US and European, mainly UK and French, companies, though China has been largely investing in the region over the past 5 years and is expected to surpass any other nation in oil export within years (pre-war figures) if they haven't already.

This no-fly zone is an extension of the Bush Pre-emptive strike to the Arab League and UN. That is to say that further destabilization from the civil war would cause threats to many interests, whether Arab, African, or World Wide. I am by no means saying that I agree with this rhetoric, but simply stating what I view it as.

Even if you don't listen to IW's rabble, consider that the two countries who are adamant about the no-fly zone are those who are invested in that Eastern Region. Yes they are protecting their interests, but by no means is it any resolution of conflict. It seeks to remove all Ghadafi military influence from a region, via drawing borders with a no-fly zone, which segregates a people who want a new style of government. Again, I am not saying that there is some evil conspiracy, but I believe that a bunch of questions need to be addressed.

[Warriorbird]

I'm glad they stepped up. Sort of entertaining that one of the major forces behind this was France.

[crb]

If it takes Obama this long to make a decision about something so black and white to most people. How the fuck long did you think it took him to fill out his bracket? Now we know what he was doing all through 2010 instead of proposing a budget.

[IorakeWarhammer]

they claim civilians as their motivation when they need to admit that energy is their motivation

these people killed 2 million in Iraq, its not a fucking game, it's not politics, we're dealing with genocide.

people are condoning this? the same group of allies are already occupying so many countries

this American Empire is crumbling..

i don't do rabble.. and i just don't care enough to convince people on this obscure message board that my suspicions about Libya are well-founded

[Tgo01]

and i just don't care enough to convince people on this obscure message board that my suspicions about Libya are well-founded

And we thank you for that.

[RichardCranium]

I don't think you motherfuckers understand. This American empire is crumbling.

It's well founded you obscure message board dwelling rejects.

[Parkbandit]

I'm glad they stepped up. Sort of entertaining that one of the major forces behind this was France.

So.. you are for this regime change?

[Warriorbird]

So.. you are for this regime change?

God yes. Gadaffi's a fucking disaster. I was actually pissed at the Bush/Obama to Gadaffi niceness post his 'return my nuclear weapons' move.

As fucked up as countries like North Korea or Nigeria are, none of them are bombing their own people.

[Tgo01]

Wait, I thought regime changes because the leader is an asshole isn't a valid reason to get rid of him?

[Warriorbird]

Wait, I thought regime changes because the leader is an asshole isn't a valid reason to get rid of him?

If we wimp out of dealing with somebody who's actually attacked America in the process, yes, but I'm relatively hawkish considering my degree of liberalism. I don't think I could be a part of my family without having a healthy degree of respect for military force and the application thereof. I definitely support helping out the people of Libya.

[g++]

Im glad we waited for a UN resolution? Setting up a no fly zone is a serious military action. They dont just patrol jets back and forth and yuck it up. Their going to bomb anti-aircraft batteries and military installations. People in Libya are likely going to die...why would we just go off to do this ourselves? Everyone is always sick of America being some kind of masked crusader but now that were actually letting the international community do its job and acting like a normal country everyones pissed were not attacking fast enough. Let the french handle it, and they can handle the fall out when theres dead libyans all over the news in the middle east.

[Warriorbird]

I think the UN was pretty woefully unprepared to deal with the situation. It took them two weeks to kick Libya off the UN Human Rights council. NATO and us deferring to them was silly.

[g++]

Well yes one of the obvious advantages of acting unilaterally is that there is no need to consult with anyone else. The drawbacks are that you pick up the bill(and yes i know we will anyway for the most part) and all the responsibility. Honestly if Libya wants to have a revolution good luck to them. Egypt or the UN should assist them its not our job in any way shape or form to support every revolution that happens to appeal to our particular sense of right and wrong at the moment.

[Tgo01]

Everyone is always sick of America being some kind of masked crusader but now that were actually letting the international community do its job and acting like a normal country everyones pissed were not attacking fast enough.

You must not have lived in the US for very long.

[crb]

I think the UN was pretty woefully unprepared to deal with the situation. It took them two weeks to kick Libya off the UN Human Rights council. NATO and us deferring to them was silly.

I agree. Why must we ask Russia (Chechnya) and China (Tibet) for permission to prevent war crimes? Honestly.

[Ardwen]

Invading or attacking Libya without UN go-ahead of some sort was an absolute no win situation for the US, until the arab world and their other neighbors do something its hard for us to just jump in alone. Just how thin can we afford to spread the military? And in the long run how do we pay for it?

[crb]

Well yes one of the obvious advantages of acting unilaterally is that there is no need to consult with anyone else. The drawbacks are that you pick up the bill(and yes i know we will anyway for the most part) and all the responsibility. Honestly if Libya wants to have a revolution good luck to them. Egypt or the UN should assist them its not our job in any way shape or form to support every revolution that happens to appeal to our particular sense of right and wrong at the moment.

I subscribe to the Spider-Man theory of foreign policy.

With great power comes great responsibility.

It is often on our shoulders to act, because we're the ones with the power to act. Even Egypt, which isn't on firm footing right now, acted before us by giving the rebels weapons, and if Khadafi maintained control Egypt, right next door, risks retaliation for that.

I also look at it like this. We spend time/effort/money on doing war games and drills to train our military, who otherwise might be sitting on these ships thinking up new ways to sexually harass each other. Why not give them something to do? This isn't Iraq, or Afganistan, where we need boots on the ground, and small scale air strikes to attack insurgents. This would be a conventional force on force conflict, in a desert with no where to hide, near the sea where our navy can sit. So let our navy have some target practice. It would be something we'd do anyways, but this way we get to save civilian lives, earn the thanks of what is potentially a nascent democracy, and fuck over admitted terrorist Khadafi. Real fighting experience is for our military is surely valuable. We're only out the cost of the ordnance.

Somewhat similar to what the Reagan is doing over in Japan. Someone might ask "Why are we spending money and putting our troops at risk of radiation exposure to help the Japanese." Well, it is training for them. Every operation is a learning experience.

[Warriorbird]

IW's stance on this is made to be even more bullshit due to his earlier backing of these same rebels.

Gadaffi's "cease fire" = totally real!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1

...yeah.

[WRoss]

You all do realize that we are playing a back seat in this? This is a French and British led assault. Sure we'll be providing intelligence and logistical support, but we are playing a "we are here if you fuck it up role".

I am concerned about what will happen if refugees who are pro-Ghadafi start showing up on the Tunisia border where the anti-Ghadafi rebels are mixed in with civilians in refugee camps. Tunisia is very limited in the way in which they could respond to two populations of people that are at civil war mixed in with innocent refugees due to the recent protests.

[Warriorbird]

You all do realize that we are playing a back seat in this? This is a French and British led assault. Sure we'll be providing intelligence and logistical support, but we are playing a "we are here if you fuck it up role".

I am concerned about what will happen if refugees who are pro-Ghadafi start showing up on the Tunisia border where the anti-Ghadafi rebels are mixed in with civilians in refugee camps. Tunisia is very limited in the way in which they could respond to two populations of people that are at civil war mixed in with innocent refugees due to the recent protests.

The drones and most of the air power will be ours, from what I've heard. I'm actually pretty comfortable with that.

[WRoss]

IW's stance on this is made to be even more bullshit due to his earlier backing of these same rebels.

Gadaffi's "cease fire" = totally real!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1

...yeah.

From what I understand, Ghadafi ordered a cease fire but one of their Chief military members revoked it. There will likely be some infighting military fracturing in the next...shit who knows how long.

[g++]

I subscribe to the Spider-Man theory of foreign policy.

With great power comes great responsibility.

It is often on our shoulders to act, because we're the ones with the power to act. Even Egypt, which isn't on firm footing right now, acted before us by giving the rebels weapons, and if Khadafi maintained control Egypt, right next door, risks retaliation for that.

I also look at it like this. We spend time/effort/money on doing war games and drills to train our military, who otherwise might be sitting on these ships thinking up new ways to sexually harass each other. Why not give them something to do? This isn't Iraq, or Afganistan, where we need boots on the ground, and small scale air strikes to attack insurgents. This would be a conventional force on force conflict, in a desert with no where to hide, near the sea where our navy can sit. So let our navy have some target practice. It would be something we'd do anyways, but this way we get to save civilian lives, earn the thanks of what is potentially a nascent democracy, and fuck over admitted terrorist Khadafi. Real fighting experience is for our military is surely valuable. We're only out the cost of the ordnance.

Somewhat similar to what the Reagan is doing over in Japan. Someone might ask "Why are we spending money and putting our troops at risk of radiation exposure to help the Japanese." Well, it is training for them. Every operation is a learning experience.

Thats pretty much a good summation of everything that is wrong with the American mind set on foreign affairs in my opinion. The idea that we should intervene in the life or death struggles of foreign nations because we have nothing better to do is beyond retarded. The reality is many of those targets will be civilians. Innocent people will die in this conflict at the hands of people who think they are the good guys just like in every other war thats ever occurred on earth. Do you think the people who are shooting for Gadhaffi right now think they are the bad guys? If something does not threaten our national security jumping in between two armed groups and declaring which side is right is not a good use of our military resources or a good use of our influence. Why dont we send more military to assist Japan for christ sake? Why do we always have to involve ourselves in this bullshit.

Heres some more food for thought. If the United States were to all out jump on the side of the rebels do you think we would actually be doing them a favor? Their entire movement started when they ejected our puppet state from Egypt. If we were too back the revolution entirely why dont we just install Mubarak as president of Libya while were at it.

I mean like seriously how many times can 500 million people willfully put their hand in a blender before people start realizing its not a good idea.

[Tgo01]

Thats pretty much a good summation of everything that is wrong with the American mind set on foreign affairs in my opinion. The idea that we should intervene in the life or death struggles of foreign nations because we have nothing better to do is beyond retarded.

Wasn't that our stance during World War 2?

[g++]

Read a fucking book.

[Tgo01]

You really think we intervene with the 'life and death struggles' of other nations because we 'have nothing better to do'? Or at least think people feel that way?

[g++]

I understand that you are confused about the events that led to world war 2 so you likely already have MASSIVE reading problems but how about you read crb's post that I quoted and get back to me on that.

[Tgo01]

I understand that you are confused about the events that led to world war 2.


Wasn't that our stance during World War 2?

It's called sarcasm. Our stance from the beginning of World War 2 was to stay out of the fighting directly, instead helping the Allies with weapons and other goodies needed to wage war. Meanwhile millions of people were dying. We didn't get directly involved in the fighting until we were personally attacked.


so you likely already have MASSIVE reading problems but how about you read crb's post that I quoted and get back to me on that

Yeah, he said we should help because 'With great power comes great responsibility.' He said we should also help because our military has nothing better to do. I think that's kind of a backwards way of looking at things but that wasn't his sole reasoning for supporting helping the rebels in Libya. Perhaps you should try reading and comprehending peoples entire posts before just picking the parts you want to discuss directly and asserting that is their whole position.

[Tgo01]

Neg no fly zone over libya 03-18-2011 03:35 PM Your a fucking moron. G++

Really dude? At least use the correct you're. It's easy to remember when to use you're instead of your. If it makes sense to say 'you are' as in 'you are a fucking moron' use you're. If it doesn't make sense to use you are, as in 'are these you are shoes?' use your.

You are (you're) welcome.

[g++]

I wrote 3 paragraphs in response to crb, you picked one line to respond to. I did not pick his post apart at all I responded to it in full.

[Tgo01]

I wrote 3 paragraphs in response to crb, you picked one line to respond to. I did not pick his post apart at all I responded to it in full.


I subscribe to the Spider-Man theory of foreign policy.

With great power comes great responsibility.

It is often on our shoulders to act, because we're the ones with the power to act.


Thats pretty much a good summation of everything that is wrong with the American mind set on foreign affairs in my opinion. The idea that we should intervene in the life or death struggles of foreign nations because we have nothing better to do is beyond retarded.

.

[g++]

Your a fucking moron. G++





.

[Tgo01]

.

I accept you are apology.

[crb]

The reality is many of those targets will be civilians. Innocent people will die in this conflict at the hands of people who think they are the good guys just like in every other war thats ever occurred on earth. Do you think the people who are shooting for Gadhaffi right now think they are the bad guys?

And if we do nothing fewer or no civilians will die? We haven't done anything yet, and certainly that hasn't helped any civilians.

And I don't think the mercenaries hired by Qaddafi (how many fucking spellings are there of this douchebag's name anyways?) care if they're "good guys" I think they care if they're paid. I also think they'll decide payment isn't worth it when they're faced with the US Navy as opposed to rebels with pickup trucks.

And seriously, that kind of moral equivalency would take Nazi soldiers, or the people who perpetrated killings in places like Sudan or Rwanada off the hook.

[Latrinsorm]

Why not give them something to do?This is kind of terrifying and comical, if you think about it. It reminds me of the way the Roman legions used to get bored and rape the subjugated populations, or depose the emperor. Oh, Rome! When will you grow up?
Do you think the people who are shooting for Gadhaffi right now think they are the bad guys?I bet at least 50% do. I bet that they also think if they try to go over to the other side Gadhaffi will probably kill them, their family, their goats, their goats' families, etc. It's never a great idea to be the one sober person, the one drunk person, or the one person who won't fire on unarmed civilians. You know who said that? I did, just now. Pay attention for chrissakes.

[g++]

And if we do nothing fewer or no civilians will die? We haven't done anything yet, and certainly that hasn't helped any civilians.

And I don't think the mercenaries hired by Qaddafi (how many fucking spellings are there of this douchebag's name anyways?) care if they're "good guys" I think they care if they're paid. I also think they'll decide payment isn't worth it when they're faced with the US Navy as opposed to rebels with pickup trucks.

And seriously, that kind of moral equivalency would take Nazi soldiers, or the people who perpetrated killings in places like Sudan or Rwanada off the hook.

I honestly do think that if we had intervened before the UN more civilians would have died than will in the current course of events. I genuinely believe that.

This is an armed conflict not genocide. I believe there have been some executions but this is not Sudan both sides are firing. If he does start executing the civilian population thats a different matter but as far as I can tell this is a civil war.

[Warriorbird]

I honestly do think that if we had intervened before the UN more civilians would have died than will in the current course of events. I genuinely believe that.

This is an armed conflict not genocide. I believe there have been some executions but this is not Sudan both sides are firing. If he does start executing the civilian population thats a different matter but as far as I can tell this is a civil war.

He's killed innocent civilians on a repeated and extended basis.

[g++]

Im not a fan of Gadaffi Im just saying I dont think hes sending out death squads to wipe the population out i.e. Genocide. Has he killed innocent civilians? Im sure he/his army has. Will the UN kill innocent civilians when they get there? Probably. Its a war innocent people die. My only point was Im glad its not us on the ground getting in the middle this time.

[crb]

This is kind of terrifying and comical, if you think about it. It reminds me of the way the Roman legions used to get bored and rape the subjugated populations, or depose the emperor. Oh, Rome!

My point being, if we're going to use bullets in wargames and live fire exercises, why not instead use those bullets to stop civilians from being slaughtered by an admitted terrorist who has killed americans?

This is directed at people who might claim "we can't afford another war."

Something shot at an island or fired into the sea costs the same amount as something shot at Qaddafi's forces. Meanwhile, it gives combat experience to our navy, which is a handy thing for a navy to have.

It wouldn't be, by itself, a reason to get involved. But it certainly is a reason to not say no when asked to get involved. Which is the situation here.

[Latrinsorm]

I have no information on the matter, but it seems like the direct financial cost of going to police action would be significantly more than the cost of exercises, regardless of the similarity in relative ammunition use. For one thing, don't soldiers just get paid more?

[crb]

Soldiers get more for serving during wartime, which this qualifies for regardless. AFAIK.

And if we're not putting boots on the ground, which we aren't, I don't see why this would necessarily cost more than a live fire exercise for the Navy. We might, in the end, use cruise missiles, which are a little expensive, but if it brought a quicker end to the conflict we'd be more than paid back in higher GDP due to lower oil prices.

[Warriorbird]

Im not a fan of Gadaffi Im just saying I dont think hes sending out death squads to wipe the population out i.e. Genocide. Has he killed innocent civilians? Im sure he/his army has. Will the UN kill innocent civilians when they get there? Probably. Its a war innocent people die. My only point was Im glad its not us on the ground getting in the middle this time.

At one point he had mercs doing FPS style shootings off rooftops to impose the Tripoli curfew.

[Parkbandit]

God yes. Gadaffi's a fucking disaster. I was actually pissed at the Bush/Obama to Gadaffi niceness post his 'return my nuclear weapons' move.

As fucked up as countries like North Korea or Nigeria are, none of them are bombing their own people.

So, you were ok with the regime change in Iraq as well?

I'm just trying to figure out when it's ok in your mind.. and when it's absolutely not ok.

[Warriorbird]

So, you were ok with the regime change in Iraq as well?

I'm just trying to figure out when it's ok in your mind.. and when it's absolutely not ok.

I was not okay with it when we had the moral imperative to chase and finish Bin Laden.

We gave him years to make himself untraceable.

Unless there's an equivalent out there now, your false equivalence mainly reveals your partisan agenda on a subject which we should be above it.

[~Rocktar~]

Keep tap dancing around the subject, but clearly it simply comes down to your whim as to when you do or don't agree with it and has no real standard of when or when not to take action. Gotcha.

[Parkbandit]

I was not okay with it when we had the moral imperative to chase and finish Bin Laden.

We gave him years to make himself untraceable.

Just so I understand you correctly.. and I don't want to create your position out of thin air:

Regime change is perfectly acceptable, unless we have something else pressing to do.



Unless there's an equivalent out there now, your false equivalence mainly reveals your partisan agenda on a subject which we should be above it.

My position is the same... I'm just laughing at yours. Your values and positions seem to change, depending on who is in the White House.

[Firestorm Killa]

Good let the French handle this one. America needs to get out of the business of policing the world. Besides we can't afford it. We also need to get out of the U.N. and quit financing it, especially since we foot the majority of the bill for it, and the human rights council came out yesterday talking about how our human rights sucks and recommendations on how to fix it. Lol.

[Solkern]

I've been checking the news almost every hour, waiting for something to happen.
Yet, nothing has been done. I thought they were going to do military action within hours....it's been almost a day.

[Warriorbird]

Just so I understand you correctly.. and I don't want to create your position out of thin air:

Regime change is perfectly acceptable, unless we have something else pressing to do.



My position is the same... I'm just laughing at yours. Your values and positions seem to change, depending on who is in the White House.

Ahhh, right. Pursuing Bin Laden wasn't important. Gotcha.

[Gan]

I've been checking the news almost every hour, waiting for something to happen.
Yet, nothing has been done. I thought they were going to do military action within hours....it's been almost a day.

That's UN Hours buddy. UN Hours.

UN Hours in real time = 5 days.

[Parkbandit]

Ahhh, right. Pursuing Bin Laden wasn't important. Gotcha.

Who said pursuing Bin Laden wasn't important.

Oh, no one. Doesn't that get tiresome?

[Warriorbird]

Who said my position changed depending on who was in the White House? Has America suffered a major attack recently? Please inform me.

If 2752 people died I'd like to know.

Oh right. Your position is bogus here and you know it.

[WRoss]

Who said my position changed depending on who was in the White House? Has America suffered a major attack recently? Please inform me.

If 2752 people died I'd like to know.

Oh right. Your position is bogus here and you know it.

What if 37,000 North Americans died? Would you feel something needed to be done about that?

[Warriorbird]

So you're saying I shouldn't support a war that I didn't with the enemy casualty number from that war?

I do prioritize American lives more highly though. I know that's not popular to some.

[WRoss]

So you're saying I shouldn't support a war that I didn't with the enemy casualty number from that war?

I am not jumping in on people ganging up on you. You have your own opinions and I won't try and change them. I'm just curious why many in America seem to ignore the Mexican War. Sure a lot of the 37,000 (that number hasn't been updated in months) deaths are cartel vs. cartel, but it's estimated that up to 25-30% of those are Civilian and Gov't individuals. If you want to talk about the gravest danger to security and economic interests, the destabilization of Mexico is it.

[Warriorbird]

I am not jumping in on people ganging up on you. You have your own opinions and I won't try and change them. I'm just curious why many in America seem to ignore the Mexican War. Sure a lot of the 37,000 (that number hasn't been updated in months) deaths are cartel vs. cartel, but it's estimated that up to 25-30% of those are Civilian and Gov't individuals. If you want to talk about the gravest danger to security and economic interests, the destabilization of Mexico is it.

Oh, I have some very definite opinions on that. The number just matched up with what I recalled as the Iraqi soldier casualty number.

[Parkbandit]

Who said my position changed depending on who was in the White House? Has America suffered a major attack recently? Please inform me

If 2752 people died I'd like to know.

Oh right. Your position is bogus here and you know it.

Huh?

I was for the War in Iraq, even when WMDs were not found. I was satisfied to continue the fight to unseat a dictator and change the government. You were not... and constantly reminded us of how much that war cost us in many, many political posts.

I am for this military action in Libya... to unseat a dictator and change the government. You are as well.

Please enlighten me how my position has changed.. even with 2 different Presidents in the WH.

[Warriorbird]

Huh?

I was for the War in Iraq, even when WMDs were not found. I was satisfied to continue the fight to unseat a dictator and change the government. You were not... and constantly reminded us of how much that war cost us in many, many political posts.

I am for this military action in Libya... to unseat a dictator and change the government. You are as well.

Please enlighten me how my position has changed.. even with 2 different Presidents in the WH.

You casually toss aside the role 9-11 played in my judgment on both. I never once said 'your position had changed.' I said that you rather callously dismissed the potential relevance of an attack on America, which I believe trumps all other concerns.

[WRoss]

Huh?

I was for the War in Iraq, even when WMDs were not found. I was satisfied to continue the fight to unseat a dictator and change the government. You were not... and constantly reminded us of how much that war cost us in many, many political posts.

I am for this military action in Libya... to unseat a dictator and change the government. You are as well.

Please enlighten me how my position has changed.. even with 2 different Presidents in the WH.

I agree here that I am for the action, but I am concerned with the execution and planning. I know that everything is very time sensitive, but I think there is a major potential for many things going very wrong, including sparking up tensions in Tunisia, again. Also, when Ghadafi is no longer paying his supporters, they are still armed, and still people who identify themselves with different tribes.

[Parkbandit]

You casually toss aside the role 9-11 played in my judgment on both. I never once said 'your position had changed.' I said that you rather callously dismissed the potential relevance of an attack on America, which I believe trumps all other concerns.

Still trying to decipher your position. You were against the war with Iraq because we didn't capture Bin Laden?

[~Rocktar~]

Still trying to decipher your position. You were against the war with Iraq because we didn't capture Bin Laden?

Give it up PB, some things just can't be explained. Among them, the nonsensical workings of the hyper Liberal/Socialist mind. It is just one of the great unexplained mysteries . . .



http://corruptcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/fucking-magnets-how-do-they-work.jpg

[EasternBrand]

That's UN Hours buddy. UN Hours.

UN Hours in real time = 5 days.

You're just making this conversion rate up. However, I propose a non-binding resolution to suggest that we adhere to this conversion. I will chair The Committee to determine whether or not this is an appropriate rate, but as The Committee does not yet have a name, we will first need to convene a session of The Subcommittee of Committee Naming. The Subcommittee shall be chaired by Gan, with voting rights allotted only to PB and WB. In the event those two are unable to agree, The Chair shall have the sole authority to convene a vote of the entire PC, which shall be binding as to the name of The Committee.

[Parkbandit]

You're just making this conversion rate up. However, I propose a non-binding resolution to suggest that we adhere to this conversion. I will chair The Committee to determine whether or not this is an appropriate rate, but as The Committee does not yet have a name, we will first need to convene a session of The Subcommittee of Committee Naming. The Subcommittee shall be chaired by Gan, with voting rights allotted only to PB and WB. In the event those two are unable to agree, The Chair shall have the sole authority to convene a vote of the entire PC, which shall be binding as to the name of The Committee.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2367515373_515ff7a325.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Still trying to decipher your position. You were against the war with Iraq because we didn't capture Bin Laden?

I'm sorry that you have trouble grasping things that have been repeated upwards of, oh, 5 times? I thought we should've flat out made a move into Pakistan post Afghanistan. We're America. He was Bush. We could make unilateral moves.



You're just making this conversion rate up. However, I propose a non-binding resolution to suggest that we adhere to this conversion. I will chair The Committee to determine whether or not this is an appropriate rate, but as The Committee does not yet have a name, we will first need to convene a session of The Subcommittee of Committee Naming. The Subcommittee shall be chaired by Gan, with voting rights allotted only to PB and WB. In the event those two are unable to agree, The Chair shall have the sole authority to convene a vote of the entire PC, which shall be binding as to the name of The Committee.

Exceptionally right on.

[Tgo01]

Still trying to decipher your position. You were against the war with Iraq because we didn't capture Bin Laden?

And even though Bin Laden is still out there apparently it doesn't matter anymore because we, how did you put it again Warrior Bird? "We gave him time to make himself untraceable"?

[Warriorbird]

And even though Bin Laden is still out there apparently it doesn't matter anymore because we, how did you put it again Warrior Bird? "We gave him time to make himself untraceable"?

I actually (OMG, two disagreements with Obama in 2 days) think we should be doing more and pulling back from Iraq.

One of the reasons I supported Obama initially was his expressed willingness to act against Pakistan, which he has not shown now that he is President.

Real gotcha there, oh Number One Wiz Khalifa fan, or is it that you are tantalized by Toshiba phones?

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry that you have trouble grasping things that have been repeated upwards of, oh, 5 times? I thought we should've flat out made a move into Pakistan post Afghanistan. We're America. He was Bush. We could make unilateral moves.


It's difficult because your views have changed over the years.. like I said, depending on what party is in the White House. So, just so we both understand... you were originally against the war in Iraq because we hadn't captured/killed Bin Laden? And once we finished taking over Afghanistan, you thought we should have invaded Pakistan?

[Warriorbird]

It's difficult because your views have changed over the years.. like I said, depending on what party is in the White House. So, just so we both understand... you were originally against the war in Iraq because we hadn't captured/killed Bin Laden? And once we finished taking over Afghanistan, you thought we should have invaded Pakistan?

My views haven't changed any of the times you've tried to pull your little rhetorical stunt, given that it's solely to 'score points'. I felt that post Afghanistan we should've gone into Pakistan after Bin Laden rather than going, "Gosh gee! Let's invade Iraq!"

I know you may've gotten the Afghanistan/Iraq timeline mixed up in your head. It's understandable given your advanced years, as is your Reagan style forgetfulness about the remarkable similarity in my views.

[Tgo01]

I actually (OMG, two disagreements with Obama in 2 days) think we should be doing more and pulling back from Iraq.

One of the reasons I supported Obama initially was his expressed willingness to act against Pakistan, which he has not shown now that he is President.

I understood your position before, I didn't agree with it but I at least understood it. So it was wrong to invade Iraq because we supposedly diverted some of our focus away from finding Bin Laden, but it's okay to focus some of our resources in Libya now even though Bin Laden is still out there and you think we should be doing more to find him?


Real gotcha there, oh Number One Wiz Khalifa fan, or is it that you are tantalized by Toshiba phones?

lol what does this even mean? All I can find on google is some rapper I've never even heard of. Either way it made me laugh.

[Warriorbird]

I understood your position before, I didn't agree with it but I at least understood it. So it was wrong to invade Iraq because we supposedly diverted some of our focus away from finding Bin Laden, but it's okay to focus some of our resources in Libya now even though Bin Laden is still out there and you think we should be doing more to find him?



lol what does this even mean? All I can find on google is some rapper I've never even heard of. Either way it made me laugh.

Right now we haven't committed much beyond some underutilized assets from Iraq. It's the French who are currently blowing Gaddafi's planes out of the sky.

I assumed your handle came from a model of colt 1911.

Tgo is a prefix associated with Wiz Khalifa's fans, the "Taylor Gang" and the Tgo1 is also a Toshiba phone.

[Parkbandit]

I understood your position before, I didn't agree with it but I at least understood it. So it was wrong to invade Iraq because we supposedly diverted some of our focus away from finding Bin Laden, but it's okay to focus some of our resources in Libya now even though Bin Laden is still out there and you think we should be doing more to find him?


If you can make heads or tails out of his "consistent" position on this, send me a PM and explain it to me?

It's like picking on the kids as they get off the short bus... sure it's easy, but after a while, you feel sorry for them and walk away.

[crb]

bombs away....

[Warriorbird]

If you can make heads or tails out of his "consistent" position on this, send me a PM and explain it to me?

It's like picking on the kids as they get off the short bus... sure it's easy, but after a while, you feel sorry for them and walk away.

I'm glad you're confident that signs of repetitive speech and forgetfulness are indications of unimpaired cognitive function.

[Parkbandit]

I'm glad you're confident that signs of repetitive speech and forgetfulness are indications of unimpaired cognitive function.

One trick pony... but with your limited intellect, we should just be thankful you can even be on the Internet.

Good for you.

[Warriorbird]

One trick pony... but with your limited intellect, we should just be thankful you can even be on the Internet.

Good for you.

I understand that you have a great deal of affection for horses. The rest of us have issues of real import to discuss. We don't need to play "I'm gonna gets um!" word of the day games.

[4a6c1]

I vote that "great deal of affection for horses" replaces any and all PC banter in relation to PB's age. Everyone else should vote too.

Aye or Nae?

[Parkbandit]

I understand that you have a great deal of affection for horses. The rest of us have issues of real import to discuss. We don't need to play "I'm gonna gets um!" word of the day games.

Maybe you should let the adults talk and you go back to your imaginary debate points again?

[Warriorbird]

Maybe you should let the adults talk and you go back to your imaginary debate points again?

I'm not so sure the one coming off not adult is quite the one you think.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm not so sure the one coming off not adult is quite the one you think.

Well, it sure isn't you so did you have someone else in mind?

[Warriorbird]

Well, it sure isn't you so did you have someone else in mind?

There's some cases where who you obtain support from suggests something about the quality of your position. You're almost always one of those cases.

[~Rocktar~]

There's some cases where who you obtain support from suggests something about the quality of your position. You're almost always one of those cases.

And in other cases, the speaker can manage to mess up, obscure or simply babble on uselessly regarding just about anything to the point that no one cares. You're always one of those cases.

[IorakeWarhammer]

I agree. Why must we ask Russia (Chechnya) and China (Tibet) for permission to prevent war crimes? Honestly.

We certainly don't ask permission to commit them.

[Warriorbird]

And in other cases, the speaker can manage to mess up, obscure or simply babble on uselessly regarding just about anything to the point that no one cares. You're always one of those cases.

I'd suggest an attempt to stop making people remember you. You could combine it with an end to your siege mentality.

The thread derail makes you both look bad.

[~Rocktar~]

I'd suggest an attempt to stop making people remember you. You could combine it with an end to your siege mentality.

The thread derail makes you both look bad.

Dude, seriously, your attempt to take the high road is both inane and transparent. Here are the facts because you can't even remember your own ramblings.

You have showed differing opinions on doing the same thing as a nation in similar circumstances multiple times.

You have changed your opinion a couple of times across threads and time and refuse to admit it. Changing your opinion or view on things is not a crime and it is easy to say "after looking at it again, I changed my mind." Big deal, it happens and people move on. It can even gain you respect in that you show an openness and willingness to actually think critically given a new perspective on a topic. Now, since you haven't managed that even if you did manage to have a consistent, coherent position or thread to your thoughts, you have managed to ramble on incoherently or to obscure your position and confuse the issue so well in your pathetic attempt to dual PB. Now it seriously looks like you are just flip flopping to be able to disagree with PB or me or others. Doing that is simple trolling 101 and you do seem to consistently claim that you want real debate when in fact, you come across as simply trolling.

Then, when backed into a corner with clear, concise and direct questions that point out how you have flip-flopped or how your behavior is inconsistent OR, in my case, hoe your behavior is consistently radical Liberal and attention whoring, you fall back to the Liberal bastion tactics of Shifting the subject, Ignoring the facts and Name calling. By the way, you also don't answer the questions posed in almost all cases.

So, in closing, quit trying so hard and actually develop a clear position on something before you want to defend it. Be prepared to defend your position. And quit trying to insult in the thinly veiled form of offering "advice". I suggest to you, to grow up, stop being an emo wannabe trying to look cool and learn how to debate with adults instead of arguing and throwing childish tantrums.

[IorakeWarhammer]

stop flaming Lunn, let's talk about Libya

[Warriorbird]

Dude, seriously, your attempt to take the high road is both inane and transparent. Here are the facts because you can't even remember your own ramblings.

You have showed differing opinions on doing the same thing as a nation in similar circumstances multiple times.

You have changed your opinion a couple of times across threads and time and refuse to admit it. Changing your opinion or view on things is not a crime and it is easy to say "after looking at it again, I changed my mind." Big deal, it happens and people move on. It can even gain you respect in that you show an openness and willingness to actually think critically given a new perspective on a topic. Now, since you haven't managed that even if you did manage to have a consistent, coherent position or thread to your thoughts, you have managed to ramble on incoherently or to obscure your position and confuse the issue so well in your pathetic attempt to dual PB. Now it seriously looks like you are just flip flopping to be able to disagree with PB or me or others. Doing that is simple trolling 101 and you do seem to consistently claim that you want real debate when in fact, you come across as simply trolling.

Then, when backed into a corner with clear, concise and direct questions that point out how you have flip-flopped or how your behavior is inconsistent OR, in my case, hoe your behavior is consistently radical Liberal and attention whoring, you fall back to the Liberal bastion tactics of Shifting the subject, Ignoring the facts and Name calling. By the way, you also don't answer the questions posed in almost all cases.

So, in closing, quit trying so hard and actually develop a clear position on something before you want to defend it. Be prepared to defend your position. And quit trying to insult in the thinly veiled form of offering "advice". I suggest to you, to grow up, stop being an emo wannabe trying to look cool and learn how to debate with adults instead of arguing and throwing childish tantrums.

Curiously enough, people even on your side can actually figure out pretty readily where you're coming from. PB's extended and repetitive trolling attempt as well as your attempt to bounce on it are the sad bits. You clearly care far more about raging out than any actual point.

I'm having difficulty grasping how you can't grasp the idea that when America is attacked we deal with the attacker before anything else. I'm pretty sure other folks are too.

On topic:

What I'm currently most curious about is where Gaddafi's other funds are stored.

[RichardCranium]

Like Reagan.