Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina
Here's how this works.  When we don't get involved, people complain.  When we do get involved, people complain.

So, the complaints don't really matter.  What does matter is that, if we do get involved, it should require UN approval (and in this particular case, the Arab League's approval).

Since we did get the necessary approvals, the complaints have less weight.

That being said, we really didn't need yet another war to be involved in.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6419|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Illogical connection, as the threat is different.
How is the threat different?

FEOS wrote:

No. I don't understand why the French decided to take out armor while enforcing a NFZ, except if the armor was attacking civilians. Of course, I don't see how they could know that, without troops on the ground to tell them that and provide terminal control on the specific armor that was doing the attacking. The ground attacks on armor seem out of bounds to me.
How are they more out of bounds than air defense systems remote from civilians?
Because you can't set up a NFZ with enemy anti-air sweeping the sky?
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6520|New Haven, CT

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:


Run over by whom? ze ruskies? Perhaps our hat will turn on us? Oh, I know, we need our military to defend our borders from an invasion from Mexico.

Have you actually put any thought into your opinion?
dude those canadian fisherman are fucking nasty
Pretty sure the US military has killed more university students on US soil than they've killed foreign soldiers.

Edit: LOL Canada.
dis for real dog?
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6817|London, England
Of course the objective is regime change, pretty much everyone except Chavez has said Gaddafi has to go. The way that it happens is what some people are having reservations with but really Daffy put it on himself. The Libyan people tried to do it relatively normally like they did in Tunisia and Egypt, but his regime just went crazy on them. Before the Japan earthquake happened and this was the top news (and it is again now) there were hundreds of stories of him using Jets, AAA, Heavy weaponry and foreign mercs against the protesters. Then the protesters eventually started fighting back, arming themselves and are now the armed milita/rebels. Fact is, this started off as what was supposed to be a free protest like Egypt but Gaddafi made it go ugly real quick....it's on him for being so heavy handed.

Same shit would happen here if the Police Forces and British Military suddenly went (hypothetically) crazy on huge groups of protesters that compromised the large majority of the population. You would see armed militia, fighting back and if they started using serious military hardware than eventual international intervention.

The US probably didn't need to get involved, infact France alone with its Air Force and Navy could have dealt with Gaddafi's forces.

I think the main reason this is turning less and less into a NFZ and more into a campaign against Gaddafi is because it happened so late. They were literally about to enter Benghazi and the Rebels were pushed back massively around the time of the Japan quake, but it wasn't really in the news. They got their arses kicked and now the UN forces are having to make up for lost time.

The Rebels need to regroup and start taking the towns back all the way to Tripoli, if they haven't already...
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

Of course the objective is regime change, pretty much everyone except Chavez has said Gaddafi has to go. The way that it happens is what some people are having reservations with but really Daffy put it on himself. The Libyan people tried to do it relatively normally like they did in Tunisia and Egypt, but his regime just went crazy on them. Before the Japan earthquake happened and this was the top news (and it is again now) there were hundreds of stories of him using Jets, AAA, Heavy weaponry and foreign mercs against the protesters. Then the protesters eventually started fighting back, arming themselves and are now the armed milita/rebels. Fact is, this started off as what was supposed to be a free protest like Egypt but Gaddafi made it go ugly real quick....it's on him for being so heavy handed.

Same shit would happen here if the Police Forces and British Military suddenly went (hypothetically) crazy on huge groups of protesters that compromised the large majority of the population. You would see armed militia, fighting back and if they started using serious military hardware than eventual international intervention.

The US probably didn't need to get involved, infact France alone with its Air Force and Navy could have dealt with Gaddafi's forces.

I think the main reason this is turning less and less into a NFZ and more into a campaign against Gaddafi is because it happened so late. They were literally about to enter Benghazi and the Rebels were pushed back massively around the time of the Japan quake, but it wasn't really in the news. They got their arses kicked and now the UN forces are having to make up for lost time.

The Rebels need to regroup and start taking the towns back all the way to Tripoli, if they haven't already...
Haven't you blasted the US for the Iraq invasion?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6817|London, England
More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2011-03-21 12:49:15)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.
No Mek, it wasn't different at all. Keep trying to justify it to yourself. There is no difference.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6817|London, England


I guess when you look at it as Westerners bombing Muslims it's exactly the same as Iraq but shit, that's some simple minded thinking right there. You're looking at it in such a black/white way that there's no use, really. Hell, I wonder how many of these bombs are even hitting Muslims anyway. The news were all reporting it was Black/European mercs doing all the business.

Obviously ideally this would have happened exactly like Egypt and Tunisia with zero intervention, but he wouldn't let it happen like that. Plus, Libya's population is smaller than London. Not nearly big enough or well armed/funded enough to do it on its own against a brutal, determined and mostly foreign enemy.

Egypt is 80 million and has a proper relatively respected Military, Mubarak had no chance, but he had small ounces of decency to not try either.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6817|London, England
Anyway I gave my explanation into why I think it's completely different, you come back with "It wasn't different, keep trying"

You honestly suck donkey. This shit isn't worth my time. I'm gonna play Pokemon
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.
No Mek, it wasn't different at all. Keep trying to justify it to yourself. There is no difference.
I'd say the key difference is UN approval.  The UN had long left behind its support of intervention in Iraq before we chose to invade.

The UN supports our intervention in Libya, so it's more legitimate.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:



I guess when you look at it as Westerners bombing Muslims it's exactly the same as Iraq but shit, that's some simple minded thinking right there. You're looking at it in such a black/white way that there's no use, really. Hell, I wonder how many of these bombs are even hitting Muslims anyway. The news were all reporting it was Black/European mercs doing all the business.

Obviously ideally this would have happened exactly like Egypt and Tunisia with zero intervention, but he wouldn't let it happen like that. Plus, Libya's population is smaller than London. Not nearly big enough or well armed/funded enough to do it on its own against a brutal, determined and mostly foreign enemy.

Egypt is 80 million and has a proper relatively respected Military, Mubarak had no chance, but he had small ounces of decency to not try either.
It's got nothing to do with Muslims. I wouldn't care if we were bombing a Catholic country. It's irrelevant.

In both cases, the goal was to remove a leader that we in the west found abhorrent. WMDs, rebel groups, same shit, it's just cover to justify invasion.

The only real difference now is that we have a Democrat in the White House so the US media is patting him on the back instead of giving war protesters a voice on every nightly news broadcast.

Edit - And for the record, I vehemently dislike both the Iraq invasion and this current Libya bullshit.

Last edited by Jay (2011-03-21 13:19:05)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.
No Mek, it wasn't different at all. Keep trying to justify it to yourself. There is no difference.
I'd say the key difference is UN approval.  The UN had long left behind its support of intervention in Iraq before we chose to invade.

The UN supports our intervention in Libya, so it's more legitimate.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:


No Mek, it wasn't different at all. Keep trying to justify it to yourself. There is no difference.
I'd say the key difference is UN approval.  The UN had long left behind its support of intervention in Iraq before we chose to invade.

The UN supports our intervention in Libya, so it's more legitimate.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Hey, I'm not saying I saw much reason to enter.  I'm just saying...  we followed protocol.

I really don't care about Libya personally.  I don't think it's important to help the rebels, but I also have no love for Gadhafi.  If we take him out, so be it -- we're just doing business as usual.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6863

Mekstizzle wrote:

More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.
The Kurds and Shi-Ites had a different opinion of Saddam.  Anfal campaign?

WIKI:

"In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]"

"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants.  friends on friends, circles within circles, making an entire population complicit in his rule".[8] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[9] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[10] to over 600,000,[11] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[12] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[13] to 200,000.[11] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14] "

How many of his own people has Gaddafi killed in this rebellion?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6797|132 and Bush

AP: Gadhafi tells Sarkozy in letter, "Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans." Here are excerpts: http://apne.ws/hFhflj
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6817|London, England
Kurds aren't all of Iraq, they're a minority. If the Shia's really all rebelled than Iraq would have looked like how it did for the occupation. IIRC, there were sanctions and no fly zones set up for Iraq too, they just weren't anywhere near as effective as they should have. Also, Gulf War 1 was a proper international and justified response to him invading Kuwait. Why they didn't go further than what they did, I don't know. But the Iraqi people is what made the difference I guess, if they were rebelling like they did in Libya maybe there would have been greater support for ousting Saddam then, even if the numbers were higher it didn't seem like a nationwide thing. Then again, Iraq on the whole is just much much bigger than Libya in every way except maybe physical geography.

2003 came out of nowhere, long after whatever Saddam did and it was all about WMD's and the new buzzword terrorism. Again, there was no massive rebel movement or widespread popular approval at the time of a foreign intervention, much less a US/British invasion with no support from the UN and boatloads of criticism. Much much less for an occupation to boot.

It was the occupation that was always the worst thing though.

Yeah also, however much you can cry about it. Public image (Obama/Democrats vs Bush/Republicans), Timing (massive protests, on going crackdown vs no protests and no crackdown, relative peace) and perception (International consensus, condemnation and approval vs the opposite for Iraq 2003) do mean alot.

The day I'll concede this is another Iraq is the day when we invade Libya against the clear will of the majority of Libyans and people in the region and the whole thing becomes a clusterfuck with Egypt/Tunisia/Algeria etc.. supplying the rebels with weapons to fight the Western occupiers etc.... frankly, I don't see that happening.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5670|Ventura, California
Yet, if the UN didn't exist. Would we be whining about this right now?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...
Looks like 1998 Iraq tbh, who knows what will happen?

I really can't draw a parallel with the 2003 situation... yet

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-21 16:01:56)

inane little opines
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5434|Cleveland, Ohio

Ilocano wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

More or less, because it was totally different. The people there weren't crying for help, they weren't even protesting or trying to get rid of Saddam. He did some bad shit. But not to the majority on such a genocidal scale, infact give me an example of another person going as crazy as Gaddafi has against the majority of his entire population. Iraq invasion was being propped up by sketchy findings and the whole thing stank. Ultimately, I was about 13 when the whole invasion shit happened so I didn't understand it fully. But I grew up during the stupid occupation that was clearly against the will of most Iraqi's especially when you look at the fucking backlash our troops got, the shit they got themselves into and everything.

It's a completely different scenario compared to Iraq, which turned into a complete clusterfuck. It was all about stopping those bad WMD's and something something terrorism, like I said, the whole thing stank from a million miles away.

Iraq was a whole full invasion, dismantling plus occupation and forcing foreign soldiers on the corners and munitions down the throats of Iraqi's who didn't exactly want that shit.

Come on man, a so called cultured and logical man like yourself should be able to see the differences from a mile away. You can't just say they both involve crazy Muslims and Western forces therefore they're the same, so you have to have the same opinion about shit.
The Kurds and Shi-Ites had a different opinion of Saddam.  Anfal campaign?

WIKI:

"In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]"

"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants.  friends on friends, circles within circles, making an entire population complicit in his rule".[8] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[9] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[10] to over 600,000,[11] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[12] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[13] to 200,000.[11] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14] "

How many of his own people has Gaddafi killed in this rebellion?
bingo.  sit down, mek.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-03-21 16:02:27)

11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5434|Cleveland, Ohio
i heard that 1 in 5 foreign fighters in iraq are from libya.  guess which part of libya?


go rebels!! ya!!!!!!!!
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5434|Cleveland, Ohio
ya gadaffy is slaughtering his people ya!!!!

proof?

oh well this guy says so.

oh ok.  attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...
Till now about 1,500 rebels were supposedly killed, but nobody knows how large the rebel group actually is. I figured they have to be quite numerous though judging by their early succes, they controlled about half of libya if not more. Guess the balance is either 50/50 or tipped slightly in the favor of the rebels.
inane little opines
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6913

11 Bravo wrote:

i heard that 1 in 5 foreign fighters in iraq are from libya.  guess which part of libya?


go rebels!! ya!!!!!!!!
rebellion fuck yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

im with marine on this, just let them kill each other. hajji bitches about "civilian massacre" by western forces and bitch when the west doesn't do anything. fuck hajji.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6583
Haji has oil. Secondly, we're still in the "never again" mindset, so if there is a massacre going on, and its beneficial for us to jump in, you can be damn sure we'll be there.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6913

Commie Killer wrote:

Haji has oil. Secondly, we're still in the "never again" mindset, so if there is a massacre going on, and its beneficial for us to jump in, you can be damn sure we'll be there.
no not really. theres a lot of places the US can jump in.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard