|
I think he's trolling Obama. I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? gently caress new page.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Thundarr posted:I thought that historically Russia and China have only issued vetos in matters they considered to be directly within their spheres of influence? In other words, they probably don't passively approve of the action, they just don't want to have anything to do with it one way or the other. This is what I meant when I said that they've been bastards in the past - China and Russia vetoing sanctions on Mugabe: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/china-and-russia-veto-un-sanctions-on-mugabe-865921.html ...and as far as them not passively approving of this action, I have to disagree with you here. Yes, they abstained and didn't actually vote in support of the resolution and won't be providing military support and this gives off more of a "do your thing, we don't care" vibe. But in the past couple of weeks they were sending a different message and implying that they might be bringing down the veto hammer on any no fly-zones: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/libya-protests-6.html I would say the fact that they didn't end up vetoing indicates that they changed their minds in light of Gadhafi's ramped up craziness. It looks more like passive approval or at the very least "even we're not big enough dicks to veto this one".
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:
I personally think they have been a bit limp for some time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:I think he's trolling Obama. I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? I'd be willing to bet yes if it gets around the news enough. Also kalonji let me see if I understand your position correctly, since we can't help everyone all the time, when the political conditions give us the chance to do the right thing for once for some people we shouldn't do it? Alright got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:For christ sake. To be fair, they aren't playing the 'don't cross this line' bullshit (at least, they aren't yet, anyway). Eventually Gaddafi's going to slip up, and attack some city, and the entire thing will come crashing down on him. Otherwise, the rebels have a pretty easy win ahead of them because the loyalists are basically paralysed at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:05
|
|
Don't cross this line!
*crosses line*
|
Isn't he attacking a city? Like, right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:I think he's trolling Obama. I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? Not really a question, they use everything against Obama regardless of what it is. Healthcare? NOT IN MY COUNTRY, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
From libyafeb17.com: "17:28 The Libyan Youth Movement say they have more confirmation that people are being kidnapped across Libya, particularly in places such as Zwara and other areas in order to be used as human shields. Earlier on Al Jazeera, an opposition leader said he was expecting Gaddafi to use human shields in the event of military strikes. Iyad El-Baghdadi adds: “Gaddafi the bastard never allowed Libyans into his complex. Now the place is crawling with them including children. Human shields. He wants collateral damage. He wants boots on the ground.” What do you guys think this will mean for any eventual combat operations in Libya? I understand right now the priority is to keep loyalist jets on the ground and possibly engage artillery and heavy armour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
Cacatua posted:A spokesman of the regime has read out a couple of letters Gaddafi wrote to addressed to Obama, and then to Cameron, Sarkozy and Ban Ki-Moon: I got this from twitter, it's entertaining if nothing else. http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0311/my_son_7ffb5ed0-e8dd-4f6a-a33a-fbeb3a337336.html I would love to be the journalist who asks "are you drunk? are you high?" E: also: twitter posted:Peaceful protesters who were forced to arm themselves can now go out again and bring Gdfi down knowing the world is with them. #libya #feb17 
Ogive fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:08
|
|
He still seems quite fond of Obama and calls him "my son," again.
|
Ramms+ein posted:From the Two Weeks Notice blog on Latin America: Ahahaha holy poo poo AVN posted:"Lybia invites international community to send in observers to confirm ceasefire" beer_war fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:To be fair, they aren't playing the 'don't cross this line' bullshit (at least, they aren't yet, anyway). I apologize. I was under the impression that Benghazi was being attacked over the last few hours. KingColliwog posted:I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? As a conservative, I personally am fine with Obama not taking the lead on this one. Quite frankly, I am sick of us being blasted each time we play world police, and allowing the EU and others to show what they are prepared to do in these circumstances is a good thing. I simply hope that there are civilians left alive when action is actually followed through with. Yes, I do think it will be used against Obama. Personally I wouldn't. Cartouche fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
This just in: KENYAN HUSSEIN OBAMA IS LYBIAN QADHAFIS SON
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:Isn't he attacking a city? Like, right now? Zintan and Misrata are apparently under attack. I believe the Benghazi attack was repelled by the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
So they are flying without taking out the air defenses first? That seems pretty dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:Not really a question, they use everything against Obama regardless of what it is. Healthcare? NOT IN MY COUNTRY, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:So they are flying without taking out the air defenses first? That seems pretty dangerous. If they shoot down a single plane they'll probably give the NFZ enforcers to carpet bomb Gaddafi's installations. The conspiracy theorist in me says that's exactly what they're going for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
cioxx posted:If they shoot down a single plane they'll probably give the NFZ enforcers to carpet bomb Gaddafi's installations. They should have a drone with a warhead attached fly over his building, fake being shot down, crashing into Gaddafi, and leveling the place. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Recreation of current actions being taken by security council: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFufoOgCMW8&feature=related Cartouche fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
quote:@CBSNews: President Obama: "The people of #Libya must be protected." Obama should get a Peabody for that deep insight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
cioxx posted:If they shoot down a single plane they'll probably give the NFZ enforcers to carpet bomb Gaddafi's installations. If an S-200 site fires on a european plane, that site would be instantly pounded to poo poo. It wouldn't surprise me if the operators had turned off their search radars, just so they aren't fired on by HARM's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Also kalonji let me see if I understand your position correctly, since we can't help everyone all the time, when the political conditions give us the chance to do the right thing for once for some people we shouldn't do it? Alright got it. Not his argument at all (as far as I can tell). I can definitely see the justification for using our military assets against Qaddaafi's, I would just like it to be done in a way that acknowledges that it's politically very easy and takes little courage to attack and invade pariah states, while we would never do something like that to extremely similar and equally brutal dictators who are our allies. Fine by me if we can destroy his military and help the people of Benghazi buy some time, but just don't try to paint it as though it's some humanitarian mission that we're undertaking because we heart human rights. Killing people is a serious issue that needs to be discussed rationally. We blew up 9 Afghan kids collecting firewood the other day, how many kids are going to be gathering firewood in Libya? If you call for a military intervention in any country, just do in a way that acknowledges that it is due to specific political and economic considerations that happen to allow it, and not because our government cares at all about human rights. If it did we wouldn't have made it a policy to prop up torturing and murdering dictators in the Middle East for decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
cioxx posted:If they shoot down a single plane they'll probably give the NFZ enforcers to carpet bomb Gaddafi's installations. If they're currently just over / around Benghazi right now they probably aren't TOO concerned with AA - that whole area has been controlled by the rebels for weeks. All the necessary Logistical, EW and Strike aircraft probably aren't in the air to start conducting SEAD yet. The British will probably be doing most of this considering they have all the Tornados.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
This thread has made me realize how completely disparate the militaries of the US are with the militaries of many of its allies, even solely in relative terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:This thread has made me realize how completely disparate the militaries of the US are with the militaries more like it. You guys spend a lot of money on pew pew
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:Not his argument at all (as far as I can tell). I can definitely see the justification for using our military assets against Qaddaafi's, I would just like it to be done in a way that acknowledges that it's politically very easy and takes little courage to attack and invade pariah states, while we would never do something like that to extremely similar and equally brutal dictators who are our allies. If you want to make a deeper analysis on the civilian toll of intervening versus not, or the moral cost of being selective in backing revolutions, by all means do so. But this is a very superficial and shallow argument that really does state the basic "we can't act like non-hypocrites so we should just cry in a corner lamenting" theme that's been pretty prevalent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
AJ: French say they have started firing on ground targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Obama should get a Peabody for that deep insight. Is it possible to win the Nobel Peace Prize two times?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Sereniel posted:Question Well he still has to earn the first one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Thundarr posted:I thought that historically Russia and China have only issued vetos in matters they considered to be directly within their spheres of influence? In other words, they probably don't passively approve of the action, they just don't want to have anything to do with it one way or the other. China in particular is trying to do deals with African governments to get cheap access to raw materials for their heavy industry. One way they do that is by saying 'hey, we can cut you aid deals without all that human rights crap', and one way they can show African dictators that they'll live up to the deal is by, e.g., vetoing resolutions against Mugabe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
quote:BBC BREAKING NEWS The French Defence Ministry has announced that a French fighter jet has fired its first shot at a military vehicle at 16:45 GMT. The French Defence Ministry has also stated that 20 fighter jets are currently involved in operations to enforce the no-fly zone. France will send an aircraft carrier to Libya, the French defence ministry has told AFP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Light-headed Fool posted:Don't be so loving naive. No nations does anything that is beyond their interest. Well, maybe a few times things are done without particular regards to a nation's own interest, but yes most of the time you need something to be BOTH the right thing to do AND in the nation's interest. The UK PM made this exact point in the House of Commons yesterday: It's both the morally right thing to do, and in the UK's national interest. Perhaps they should intervene other places too, but getting involved in a few places is better than nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
BBC 1718: Talking about the first shot by a French aircraft on a Libyan military vehicle, French defence ministry spokesman Laurent Teisseire told reporters: "A first target was engaged and destroyed." An armed forces spokesman told the same briefing the operation to halt Colonel Gaddafi's advance on rebel forces involved around 20 planes and an area 100 km by 150 km (60 by 100 miles) around the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi. France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier will leave France for Libya on Sunday, the spokesman added. A central command centre for the operation was still being set up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:I think he's trolling Obama. I'm not american, but do you guys think Republicans and tea party will use this against Obama? FreeRepublic is... on the job! Barack Obama is a Muslim, says Libya's Qadhafi..lol (he liked his Muslim brother back in 2008) On the far right, "hell yeah, killin' brown people" has slightly outweighed "hey, why are we spending blood and treasure helping sand-monkeys?". Plus Obama's lack of drive on the issue gives them an awesome chance to call him a dove, so they're getting posts like this: Libya: Obama's No-Guts Zone Obama: We’re Going To War With Libya…Well, Kinda Sorta I imagine most of Free Republic doing an anguished pee-pee dance trying to figure out whether to back this for the sake of Hawkism, killing Reagan-era villain Mad Dog Qaddaffi, and making Obama look like a pansy, or whether to keep out of it in the name of fiscal conservatism, not helping a bunch of Islamacist Ay-rabs, and not being part of "US OUT OF UN!!!". The cognitive dissonance is causing a thermal uptick across Alabama. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I like how they make it sound like France has more than one carrier. At least they'll finally get some use out of the DeGaulle
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
I hope they're bombing the tanks and artillery outside of Benghazi. Hope they don't forget about the western parts of the country though, Misarata has been pounded the latest days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Can we pick one way of spelling gaddafi's name and stick to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
Obviously Moamer Khaddaffi is the superior spelling. That guy they have on BBC right now is so loving smug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Thomase posted:Can we pick one way of spelling gaddafi's name and stick to it? Qadaffy Duck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:more like it. You guys spend a lot of money on pew pew Yuuuup. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Thomase posted:Can we pick one way of spelling gaddafi's name and stick to it? Raymond Luxury-Yacht. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyQvjKqXA0Y
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Thomase posted:Can we pick one way of spelling gaddafi's name and stick to it? Unless you are writting it in Arabic there's a lot of ways you can spell it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:29
|
|