Was mogaf threatening to cut off the oil supply? It seems to me that the bombing for oil argument is counterintuitive. Especially considering the rebel opposition has no defined leadership.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
still have not seen any solid concrete proof of genocide so i have no idea where this is coming from. and dont show me defecting pilots as proof either. whether they were told to or not it still didnt happen.
Honestly I don't understand how Libya was a direct and immediate threat to the US. That is the only way the President can authorize his 30 day military intervention without congressional approval. Those are the rules for our constitution.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Think it's the former minister of interior (fact check) that are trying to pull some strings on the rebel side, he apparently "defected" over to the rebels when Daffy started killing his own people ...Kmar wrote:
Was mogaf threatening to cut off the oil supply? It seems to me that the bombing for oil argument is counterintuitive. Especially considering the rebel opposition has no defined leadership.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
once again...show me.Varegg wrote:
Daffy started killing his own people ...
Obama has to be bombing libya to save lives.. he's got a nobel peace prize and everything to prove it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oh shit thats right.Kmar wrote:
Obama has to be bombing libya to save lives.. he's got a nobel peace prize and everything to prove it.
like the southpark episode with the two hunters and their tv show..
"we have to kill the deer so they dont starve and die"
Every male of military age is not purposely designed to kill those enforcing a ground "NFZ". Air defenses are. They serve no other purpose than to shoot at aircraft, therefore, the threat is different than just a generic male of military age.Dilbert_X wrote:
How is the threat different?FEOS wrote:
Illogical connection, as the threat is different.
If the armor are not attacking civilians, they are not part of the UNSCR. If they are not endangering aircraft enforcing the NFZ, they are not part of the UNSCR. The forces there are supposed to be enforcing the UNSCR. The air defenses are part of the NFZ enforcement, which is part of the UNSCR.Dilbert_X wrote:
How are they more out of bounds than air defense systems remote from civilians?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.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This. I've been looking for a threat to US interests, and can't find one. And it looks like this is about to disrupt my personal life immensely...FEOS not happy.Kmar wrote:
Honestly I don't understand how Libya was a direct and immediate threat to the US. That is the only way the President can authorize his 30 day military intervention without congressional approval. Those are the rules for our constitution.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
An F15 crashed in libya. Both pilots have been found.. safe.
BBCBreaking: US military says second crewman from crashed fighter jet in #Libya has been safely rescued http://bbc.in/g5x91m
BBCBreaking: US military says second crewman from crashed fighter jet in #Libya has been safely rescued http://bbc.in/g5x91m
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol this is like some comedy show. a terrible expensive and tragic comedy show.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Totally agree with this statement ... attacking Daffy's regular forces on the ground is meddling with a civil war and that's not part of enforcing the NFZ ...FEOS wrote:
If the armor are not attacking civilians, they are not part of the UNSCR. If they are not endangering aircraft enforcing the NFZ, they are not part of the UNSCR. The forces there are supposed to be enforcing the UNSCR. The air defenses are part of the NFZ enforcement, which is part of the UNSCR.
I'm in doubt if we should be a part of this conflict at all ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Where in the UNSCR does it say that anything 'endangering' aircraft enforcing the NFZ can be destroyed?FEOS wrote:
If the armor are not attacking civilians, they are not part of the UNSCR. If they are not endangering aircraft enforcing the NFZ, they are not part of the UNSCR. The forces there are supposed to be enforcing the UNSCR. The air defenses are part of the NFZ enforcement, which is part of the UNSCR.
How does a command and control centre endanger anything exactly?
Were all the radar stations switched on and pointed at aircraft when they were hit?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The "all means necessary" clause.Dilbert_X wrote:
Where in the UNSCR does it say that anything 'endangering' aircraft enforcing the NFZ can be destroyed?FEOS wrote:
If the armor are not attacking civilians, they are not part of the UNSCR. If they are not endangering aircraft enforcing the NFZ, they are not part of the UNSCR. The forces there are supposed to be enforcing the UNSCR. The air defenses are part of the NFZ enforcement, which is part of the UNSCR.
How does a command and control centre endanger anything exactly?
Were all the radar stations switched on and pointed at aircraft when they were hit?
You probably need to look up what 'necessary' means then.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
tell that to the un not me.Dilbert_X wrote:
You probably need to look up what 'necessary' means then.
I'm sure the UN knows what it means, possibly not the people assigning the targets though.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
same guys who wrote it are part of the bombing aren't they?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure the UN knows what it means, possibly not the people assigning the targets though.
Are they?Cybargs wrote:
same guys who wrote it are part of the bombing aren't they?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure the UN knows what it means, possibly not the people assigning the targets though.
In all probability they would have had that sentence added knowing they'd bend it later.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
UNSC reso's are usually brought up and/or written by one of the P5s.Dilbert_X wrote:
Are they?Cybargs wrote:
same guys who wrote it are part of the bombing aren't they?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm sure the UN knows what it means, possibly not the people assigning the targets though.
In all probability they would have had that sentence added knowing they'd bend it later.
Mek, you made no rational argument. You were anti the Iraq war but you're pro the Libya war. They are the same. How can you be for one and against the other? The only variable between the two conflicts is one is being cheerleaded by the media and the other was derided by it. This tells me you don't put any real thought into your opinions, you just parrot the opinions of others. You're a left wing Hunter/Jumper.Mekstizzle wrote:
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.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
The difference is Libya is a popular uprising which we have decided to back.Jay wrote:
are the same. How can you be for one and against the other?
In Iraq we called for a popular uprising, then sat back, watched it get crushed, waited ten years and then decided to go in anyway to 'help' the people who now hated us.
Apart from that they're the same.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-22 05:48:13)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The Iraqi people didn't hate us by any means. The vast majority welcomed us with open arms. Most of the insurgents were foreign born jihadists and/or Baath party members. The average Iraqi is/was happy we were there.Dilbert_X wrote:
The difference is Libya is a popular uprising which we have decided to back.Jay wrote:
are the same. How can you be for one and against the other?
In Iraq we called for a popular uprising, then sat back, watched it get crushed, waited ten years and then decided to go in anyway to 'help' the people who now hated us.
Apart from that they're the same.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Sure, but the dead marsh arabs and their surviving relatives probably not so much.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!