welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

V For Vendetta , Live , Courtesy of The Egyptian People.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nah, they won't do that. It's too easy to compare it to Afghanistan or Iraq. And after all, they need to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. What they'll probably do, is attack Obama on the way the war is fought/how well everything goes.

Imagine, if you will: "Obama's for this war? Well, we support it even more! He wants to bomb some buildings? We want to invade and occupy! Why didn't he invade sooner? Why is Gadaffi still alive? SOCIALISM!"
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
Nah, they won't do that. It's too easy to compare it to Afghanistan or Iraq. And after all, they need to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. What they'll probably do, is attack Obama on the way the war is fought/how well everything goes.

Imagine, if you will: "Obama's for this war? Well, we support it even more! He wants to bomb some buildings? We want to invade and occupy! Why didn't he invade sooner? Why is Gadaffi still alive? SOCIALISM!"


I think it's more likely they'll go with "Obama needs to fix the troubles here first!" approach. Since the economic crisis the general rhetoric has shifted inwards. Keep in mind that this is not "fighting terrurists" but spending money and time on some other country's problems. Time and money that could be used for TAX CUTS and SMALL BUDGET.


"us folks" want to know what the president is doing to help us, not some muslisns in some country that is probably in asia or something. It's Okay If You're A Republican (IOKIYAR) but a democrat must always put every fucking thing into fixing our problems.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

YOu can't forget though that good majority of Americans grew up in the 80's knowing Khadafi as a terrorist threat and are probably like "Who the fuck fuck is Gadhafi?" I wish I were joking.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10907
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Currently, at least what I've seen, the response thus far has been something like, "Oh, we're all against wars when a Republican sends us in, but if Obama does it it's okay?" with definite notes of American protectionism - i.e., where's the benefit for us?

Edit: Also, we've come full circle as some are questioning the admittedly probably unconstitutional nature of Obama's authorization for engagement without consent of Congress. So, you know, expect to hear "illegal war" applied in all new and sarcastic ways.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Ill do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12315
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Edit: Also, we've come full circle as some are questioning the admittedly probably unconstitutional nature of Obama's authorization for engagement without consent of Congress. So, you know, expect to hear "illegal war" applied in all new and sarcastic ways.

What's bugging me about it is the lack of definitive information about whether or not a no-fly zone needs Congressional approval. Lindsey Graham said that it wouldn't, Boehner was "looking into it," and now that it's happened every right-wing source around is saying it's necessary so Obama's "war" is illegal. You'd think somebody would have a simple yes/no answer, and that this specific information would be widely reported on, rather than just the insinuation that it may/may not from politicians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10907
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously IANAL, but I'm generally of the opinion that the Constitution and War Powers Act require the President to seek Congressional approval for any plan to send American troops into conflict. Aside from being law (at least as I understand it...), it also adds checks and balances. So, I'm not opposed to anyone being disgruntled at the way in which Obama sent troops to Libya, even if they're currently just lobbing missiles rather than flying around enforcing the no-fly zone.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Ill do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6118
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's also the question of how much of this is a no-fly zone and how much is supporting the rebels. The UK apparently put a cruise missile into Qaddafi's old palace; France attacked Qaddafi's forces outside of Benghazi; the US has apparently participated in the bombing as well with even B-2 bombers. Obviously, bombing Libya's air defense system would be a necessary part of enforcing a no-fly zone, but that's not the only thing this international force has been doing in Libya. So, constitutionality of the US joining a no-fly zone without Congressional authorization aside, it's up for debate as to what exactly this military campaign is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Currently, at least what I've seen, the response thus far has been something like, "Oh, we're all against wars when a Republican sends us in, but if Obama does it it's okay?" with definite notes of American protectionism - i.e., where's the benefit for us?


Not to mention (in the article) revisionist history. Since when did George W. Bush ever demand Saddam Hussein to abdictate? Since when was his intent to "promote democracy in the Middle East"? Since when was the reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq the failure of Saddam to leave his post?

Absolutely ridiculous. I know the "American Thinker" is a Republican think-tank, but come on!
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

US jet crashes in Libya, both crew are safe
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press 1 hr 25 mins ago
Quote:
BERLIN A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city.
Britain's Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet's airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out "OK, OK" to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
"I hugged him and said: 'Don't be scared, we are your friends,'" Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman's hand.
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," he said. "We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away."

A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.


Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_on_re_eu/libya_us_jet
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
tinkeringIdiot



Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See now that is what "greeted as liberators" looks like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Him



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4191
Location: On edge

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Parts of Iraq, mainly the kurdish parts, were quite happy with the U.S invasion. Not so much the case anymore. Much of the left has, I believe naively, lined up in support of a western imposed no-fly zone over Libya, which will mean bombings of the cities. It's a though situation no doubt, but can the civilian deaths that might be avoided by this really excuse the civilian deaths that will be caused by it? Not to mention the intervening powers do not have a very pleasant history in that particular part of the world. Up until very recently allying with Qadaffi for one thing.
_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tinkeringIdiot



Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed. Though one important difference in my mind is that this started as an internal conflict into which the world powers entered long after the bloodshed became a humanitarian crisis. That is a critical distinction between this conflict and those we started in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Needless to say that there is no "good' option when people are being killed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5133
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Him wrote:
Parts of Iraq, mainly the kurdish parts, were quite happy with the U.S invasion. Not so much the case anymore. Much of the left has, I believe naively, lined up in support of a western imposed no-fly zone over Libya, which will mean bombings of the cities. It's a though situation no doubt, but can the civilian deaths that might be avoided by this really excuse the civilian deaths that will be caused by it? Not to mention the intervening powers do not have a very pleasant history in that particular part of the world. Up until very recently allying with Qadaffi for one thing.


It's awfully impressive that no civilians have been reported dead as a result of the air strikes to date. I have only heard of two villagers being wounded, but not fatally so.

I've been struggling with the Libyan situation. For me, the crucial difference is that:
1.) The Colonel has no popular support. This was clear during the protests and the subsequent defections of ambassadors and soldiers. It has become even more clear now that in a city of more than a million, no mass protests have emerges against the air strikes.

2.) This did not start out as an armed insurrection. It started out as mass protests. It was only after the Colonel made clear that he will gladly mow down his own people that the international community opted for intervention.


Now, there are other countries that fit a similar description which did not receive any assistance. I can't say if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I can't say that I think it's a good idea to allow a massacre. Intervention is not often a good option, but it seems nearly as justified in this case as it can be.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12315
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
It's awfully impressive that no civilians have been reported dead as a result of the air strikes to date. I have only heard of two villagers being wounded, but not fatally so.

And this despite the reported practice of lining up people to be human shields against airstrikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm with mizike. once it was clear that qaddafi was happy to slaughter his own people if they dared object, i figured something would have to be done (i tend to think it's a shame we haven't done more in other areas, like sudan, but then i don't have to explain things to the rest of the world). but the longer we stay, the more risk there is of innocent people being killed, and the less libyans and others in the area will accept that. i really don't want this to turn into yet another war, so i hope this can be over with quickly, and then we can leave the libyan people to sort out where they want to go.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 11 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group