Coalition launches Libya attacks

[cancerinform]

i guess i am saying that intervention for the very best reasons often has unexpected and potentially dangerous outcomes.

News reports here this morning suggest 'flickers of al Qaeda' amongst the rebels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ief-fears.html

Well, Gaddafi was very successful in spreading this news. He was the one mentioning al-Qaeda first, because it will keep the West away.

[david petley]

Well, Gaddafi was very successful in spreading this news. He was the one mentioning al-Qaeda first

...and that automatically makes it untrue?
Do you think there is absolutely no possibility of such a thing occurring?
Do you think the rebels who might take control in this situation are squeaky clean and will obviously be a better choice than Gaddafi was?

I mentioned it because historically, intervention often backs (by that I mean arms and supports) what turns out to be the wrong horse in hindsight. I wonder if it will turn out to be the same in Libya.

[hanratty21]

Bottom line - the guy is a savage and deserves to get peeled like a banana.

[FlashLackey]

...and that automatically makes it untrue?
Do you think there is absolutely no possibility of such a thing occurring?
Do you think the rebels who might take control in this situation are squeaky clean and will obviously be a better choice than Gaddafi was?

I mentioned it because historically, intervention often backs (by that I mean arms and supports) what turns out to be the wrong horse in hindsight. I wonder if it will turn out to be the same in Libya.

I agree that the outcome of regime change is never certain. History does show that the next leadership can be as bad or worse than the previous. However, I don't see that as a reason to not confront a current tyrant for their misdeeds. Even small odds for improved leadership are better than no odds of the old leadership improving. Those odds look better when the cost for change is lessened by internal rebellions.

In the case of Libya, our options were to act quickly to take advantage of a moment when Gadaffi and his regime have been weakened or to spend time speculating about what the odds are of his replacement being better were. By the time we reached a conclusion, Gadaffi may have regained his foothold and the advantage to more easily depose him would have been lost.

In my view, his history, his recent acts of violence against unarmed people and the significant opposition of his own people justified the action taken.

It has created an interesting debate. I'm seeing conservatives going the isolationist route and liberals making the same arguments used to defend George W going into Iraq.

[cancerinform]

...and that automatically makes it untrue?
Do you think there is absolutely no possibility of such a thing occurring?
Do you think the rebels who might take control in this situation are squeaky clean and will obviously be a better choice than Gaddafi was?

There could be some who belong to al-Quaida but to assume that that 100000s are al-Quaida that I don't believe. It's a great chance now if Gaddafi is defeated to influence the formation of a new government.

[silverx2]

the whole situation was a disaster from the start.

The first two countries did it peacefully, They had rallies, they had order. They setup check points to make sure nobody brought weapons, They had really well thought out plans, and it had the desired effect.

Then comes libya, acting retarded. Libya's attempt to get rid of Gaddafi reminds me of the scene in super troopers when the retard cop freaks out and says that he can make the driver in th other car say chicken ****er, after the other two cops do the whole "how many meows do you think i can get in before they notice?" The Libyan rebels just seem like they had no plan for it, no real leadership directing their cause. Almost like they saw Egypt succeed and then said to themselves "Omfg if Egypt can do it we can do it, lets go car bomb some **** and get freedom"

Should Gaddafi have left? Yes.
Was he right to bomb his own people? No.
Does that justify the Libyans from using violence initially? No.

Basically they bit off more then they can chew, they dug themselves a huge ****ing hole, and now we are stuck with cleaning up the mess, or watching a tyrant become even more powerful. Its a runaway train now, you cant undo what has happened, we are basically All-in Either Gaddafi goes/gets killed or we are permanently going to be at war with Libya

[caseyryan]

That's a beginning of the WW3.
Kadafi war right when he started killing those paid revolutionaries. I would definitely kill them too if I was him.
What does he have to do? Just sit and wait till the damn coalition hangs him like they hung Melochevich and Saddam?
I just hope there was enough soviet weapon sold to Libya, so they could strike as many coalition planes as possible and kill more coalition soldiers.

I guess we'll only learn after it's too late.

Or never. It's definitely time to change the world's leaders.

[david petley]

but to assume that that 100000s are al-Quaida that I don't believe.

Me either. A report of 'flickers of al Qaeda' amongst the rebels hardly equates to 100000s by any stretch of the imagination.

I doubt Al Quaeda could raise a single battalion (or even a company) in one place, let alone 100 battalions.

david

[FlashLackey]

That's a beginning of the WW3.
Kadafi war right when he started killing those paid revolutionaries. I would definitely kill them too if I was him.
What does he have to do? Just sit and wait till the damn coalition hangs him like they hung Melochevich and Saddam?
I just hope there was enough soviet weapon sold to Libya, so they could strike as many coalition planes as possible and kill more coalition soldiers.

So, you have trouble believing that anyone would protest in a country where having a political conversation with a foreigner can land you in prison for 3 years? How about yourself? Would you be ok with going to prison for 3 years for writing your post in this thread?

Also, since you appear to support Gaddafi, do you also believe his explanation for the protests? He says that Al-Qaeda has been putting hallucinogenic drugs in their milk, coffee and Nescafe. Which type of drugs do you think they used? How did they get them into Nescafe containers?

[caseyryan]

FlashLackey, you definetely can't read. I never said I support Caddafi. He's a moron. Neither I support coalition.

So, you have trouble believing that anyone would protest in a country where having a political conversation with a foreigner can land you in prison for 3 years?

That's bull****. First, the minor part of them started to protest, far not everyone, the part which was paid by coalition. Second, looks like you lived in Libya and was sent to prison for 3 years
That's just ridiculous. You believe in everything you're told. I even dread to think what you were told about USSR Evil empire, boo )

do you also believe his explanation for the protests?

I don't care for his explanations. There are a lot of people smarter than him, who have another explanations. I tend to believe them more, plus I have my own explanation.

As to the situation in all, I don't care for any african residents, neither for Lybians, nor for anyone else, and I don't think coalition troops or nato or russia have to support anyone. Everyone has to mind his own business. But I hope Iran will drop an a-bomb on israel That's what I'd really like to see.

He says that Al-Qaeda has been putting hallucinogenic

Seems like you drunk that nescafe when you were writing this post ))
Don't tell me anything about al-qaida. I don't believe in al-qaida and other crap like that and I never will. So I don't even wanna talk about that.

[cancerinform]

[B]But I hope Iran will drop an a-bomb on israel That's what I'd really like to see.

I usually don't interfere into others conversation, but you better be careful what you write here.

[gerbick]

So... nobody agrees on what is happening now is the right thing to do.

So I assume that nobody has any other plan of action in place. Something is happening across Northern Africa and into the Middle East. Either the folks are tired of what's been happening in their political system(s) or there's a need for change indeed.

Whichever the reason is, it seems that the old way of rule should change.

I do not think we should be the world police, nor do I want the US to be heavily involved with putting any government systems together for any other country; however their is a need since some countries don't even have constitutions in place (or at least one that's not have had any updates in 30+ years) and there needs to be a handoff of power to folks that want to rule properly.

Not a bunch of radicals or rebels.

Regardless, people will talk about how nobody is getting it right, we still need to make sure whatever happens goes better than the last 30-50 years in those respective countries in regards to the rights of the people and the ruling party.

[cancerinform]

Gerb,

you are exactly pointing to the right problem. However, if the stupid Bush, son of a *****, did not start the Afghanistan and Irak wars (especially Irak), well now there would be the money and the mental support to help rebels in some of these countries, most probably including Irak. However, he has bankrupted the US and the morals and now everybody is extremely cautious in words and what they do.

[caseyryan]

I usually don't interfere into others conversation, but you better be careful what you write here.

Careful of what? That some "democratic" moderator bans me for this?
I don't really care. I have my opinion and I'm not gonna follow anybody like a sheep.

[gerbick]

Gerb,

you are exactly pointing to the right problem. However, if the stupid Bush, son of a *****, did not start the Afghanistan and Irak wars (especially Irak), well now there would be the money and the mental support to help rebels in some of these countries, most probably including Irak. However, he has bankrupted the US and the morals and now everybody is extremely cautious in words and what they do.

For once, I don't blame Bush - shocking, I know. But if anything, the US needs to stop being "world police" and should show interest in the humanitarian aspect and don't offer any money, weapons or moral support to any rebel faction. That sorta backfired with the Muhadeen, who became the Taliban who begat Al Queda.

Face it... America has been relegated to money and resource hungry imperialists that are out to do nothing but line their own pockets. And you can say that's been the case since before Nixon. It's not for us to go in, sit folks down, make them work a certain way.

But to give support to the people of the country that want a change, that also want rights, that have dreams... that humanitarian effort is where the US needs to be, imho. I mean, we need to support the growth (business), health (the people) and make sure that the people that come into power use that to support the people that (honestly) overthrew the prior regime or structure because they got that unhappy.

It can happen again. So to avoid that in the future, the upcoming governments in those areas of turmoil need to empower the people. I'm just not sure it's the US (alone) that's up to task.

So yeah... a change came to Northern Africa. We need to avoid supporting rebels and other unhappy factions. Support the people. Don't send guns, they tend to be able to be turned inward or onto their own folks.

That's my opinion.

[gerbick]

Careful of what? That some "democratic" moderator bans me for this?
I don't really care. I have my opinion and I'm not gonna follow anybody like a sheep.

Banning is easy. Very easy. That's not the point though.

Saying such radical things as somebody should be bombed to oblivion should just be avoided in normal conversation. It just makes for a much nicer conversation.

So his request is to be considerate. Not that you were going to be banned. In fact, nobody said that until you brought it up.

And about your opinion, it's encouraged. But a least be as civil to others as you want them to be to you. That's a courteous way to be.

[caseyryan]

Saying such radical things as somebody should be bombed to oblivion should just be avoided in normal conversation.

gerbick, let's be honest. Not somebody. I said Israel. Coalition bombs Lybia right now. Is it a courteous way to be?
Not at all. It will only cause more victims. Bombs don't choose who to kill. And anyway a lot of people here (I mean this thread) think it's the right thing to do.
But do you think the people who support Caddafi should be killed?

The funny thing is that if anyone says anything against Israel, it's a radikal thing, if someone says anything against Israel enemies, he's a good guy.

[gerbick]

gerbick, let's be honest. Not somebody. I said Israel. Coalition bombs Lybia right now. Is it a courteous way to be?

Last I checked, I'm not the person dropping bombs on Libya. Nor am I the person to ask about this kind of stuff.

However, I am in a conversation with you right now. Thus, that's what I'll address directly. That's the part that I am a part of.

I'm quite sure you can tell the difference. If not, I'll gladly explain it more deeply to disallow further confusion.

Not at all. It will only cause more victims. Bombs don't choose who to kill. And anyway a lot of people here (I mean this thread) think it's the right thing to do.

I don't see a question, I see your opinion. So that's allowed... so continue to share.

But do you think the people who support Caddafi should be killed?

Now I see a question... and to be honest, no. I don't think that Gaddafi supporters should be killed. There's other ways to remove a person and his supporters from power and do it without bullets and death. Just... well, let's be honest. That rarely happens.

The funny thing is that if anyone says anything against Israel, it's a radikal thing, if someone says anything against Israel enemies, he's a good guy.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of bombing anybody. But once Gaddafi decided to start killing his own folks in a show of power against him losing power, I could see why those folks met that with equal, if not greater force from within. But the tides were against those folks due to Gaddafi having put up some serious anti-aircraft and anti-personnel weaponry. It's not even about Israel. So I don't get why in so few sentences you're trying to craft an argument that's just not there.

Simple and plain: be as courteous as you want people to be to you.

If you're out to antagonize, feel free to bother other folks other than me. I have no time to argue.

[silverx2]

gerbick, let's be honest. Not somebody. I said Israel. Coalition bombs Lybia right now. Is it a courteous way to be?
Not at all. It will only cause more victims. Bombs don't choose who to kill. And anyway a lot of people here (I mean this thread) think it's the right thing to do.
But do you think the people who support Caddafi should be killed?

The funny thing is that if anyone says anything against Israel, it's a radikal thing, if someone says anything against Israel enemies, he's a good guy.

Fun fact, People also supported the bombing of Hitler, which included people who followed Hitler. But then again, we didn't bomb Stalin, and Stalin Probably killed more of his own people than Gaddafi.

Too much flipflopping, i say we bomb Russia.

[caseyryan]

But then again, we didn't bomb Stalin

The US were too afraid of the USSR to try and do it.

and Stalin Probably killed more of his own people than Gaddafi.

Well, that's true.

But once Gaddafi decided to start killing his own folks in a show of power against him losing power

What would you do in this situation if you were him?