MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...
What's this I hear?
What wondrous thing?
Is this the DEFCON klaxon's ring?
A flashing light ...
Above the door! There's just one thing it could mean ...
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-19 20:05
So much for Obama and his "change"..
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-19 20:18
At least the Libyans ARE fighting against their regime, unlike Iraq. It was the Bush administration who started the war in Iraq through false information. This time it was the French government followed by the international community, not just the US.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-19 21:00
It was the Bush administration who started the war in Iraq through false information.
The misinformation was not initially on their part in that act, to be fair. After it began propagating, however, evolving from rumor to allegation, it was a point of acceptance for some time that Iraq had WMDs. Then the accepted fact began waning and all that was left was the premise - the implicating information. To be fair again, Saddam did at one point have some of such weapons but had gotten rid of them and did not make others in fear that the Administration would act on their existence. The information about their existence was probably related to observation of the evidence of their destruction or removal, jumping to the conclusion that other WMD existed.
This is neither here no there. What's the difference between another country overthrowing a dictator, a group of countries overthrowing a dictator, or the citizenry of a nation overthrowing their own dictator, as long as the citizens of that country reach the inevitable point where they are in control of their own country? Are you that afraid of the blame, regret, and responsibility or being an irrational human being?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-19 23:29
Why should we support Libya? So they can have abortions and same-sex marriage there?
The Libyans rose up against an extremely repressive government that was not suffering from significant instability and have managed to organize what are largely raw recruits into a militia capable of surviving an offensive by a professional army for weeks. This is an unusual event.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-20 7:11
To be fair, America is NOT taking the lead in this. We'll see if that holds up as time moves on.
Not an Obama fan, myself, but I have to say I think this was handled well. America kept it's powder dry and waited for other nations to take the lead for a change. France seems to be the leader in this operation.
>>8
Well, partial eye opener there. Even so, that's believing someone else's lies to be truth and, if someone is going to spill the beans about something like that, who would actually have clout in that department?
In any case, it doesn't matter who ran first. We'll still be the butt of criticism in the end.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-20 19:04
From where I see it, those protesters had it coming. I'm amazed that Egypt didn't go out without a fight, but when you attack a clear 100% despot, unarmed, you're fucking asking for it. You don't organize democratic protests in a dictatorship. You'll get shot! What's wrong with these people?! Sure, they've started a healthier military revolution now, but IT WAS THEY WHO STARTED IT! You don't walk up to the psychopathic president of a country and punch him in the face and then expect to survive, and even expect other countries to back you up.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-20 19:04
didn't go out = did go out
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-21 11:58
>>12
>You don't organize democratic protests in a dictatorship. You'll get shot! What's wrong with these people?! Sure, they've started a healthier military revolution now, but IT WAS THEY WHO STARTED IT!
Wow, so you would rather them bend over backwards and not organize protests at all? Simply organizing a protest is not a good reason for violence. The dictator is completely at fault here, it's disingenuous to say the protesters started anything. It doesn't matter how powerful your dictatorship is, violence against peaceful protesters is always unjustified, and I'm disturbed that you think there are some things you just don't do in a dictatorship.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-21 12:35
My cousin who's a USAF Cargo and Personnel Transport Pilot got a phone call last week to be at the base deployment center two days later. He couldn't say 'where' he was going but it's a sure bet it was the Libyan Thearte. It's also significant because he's qualified to transport USMC Personnel which means if you read-between-the-lines the US could indeed be putting Marines "on the shores of Tripoli" as the song goes in a very short time despite press releases to the contrary from the US Govt. Just a heads up people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-21 22:42
>>12
I think you misinterpreted the political situation in Egypt. This may have been true in Stalinist Russia but Egypt had a large educated middle class, plutocrats who had been growing in power and influencing the government for years and a sophisticated economy that many of these plutocrats did not want to see ruined by ruthless reprisals against protestors.
In other words capitalism is why Egypt could become a democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-21 23:46
OP here, been a while sorry. >>15
There are U.S. Marines currently offshore from Libya in amphibious landing ships.
--
British Petroleum has tens of billions invested in oil with Libya.
Libya has the largest oil reserves in North Africa.
We're there for oil, folks.
>This also sets the precedent that we can invade any country (without congressional approval, via the UN) in the event of civil unrest, protests, etc etc.
>What happens when there is mass civil unrest and rioting in the U.S.?
(Which will only happen if Americans are starving; without malnutrition Americans are far too apathetic to get off the couch.)
>>17
That's guilt by association. Restuff your strawman and try again with something more substantive.
This also sets the precedent that we can invade any country (without congressional approval, via the UN) in the event of civil unrest, protests, etc etc.
I should like to think this is one of many reasons Congress is half up in arms about the President stepping over them. The United States should be a force of good in the world but we should not be a proactive one, or a government second to International will and whim.
Which will only happen if Americans are starving; without malnutrition Americans are far too apathetic to get off the couch.
Some people always hope for the next big something that will get the United States as a whole up in arms in unrest like a two-bit nation. Even the Vietnam war protests of the past, for however big they were, failed to be large in comparison. The Great Depression? Orderly. Trust me when I tell you that you'll be here for a while. We're actually much better at coping with civilized survival than a third-world dictatorship or a second-world country straddling the precipice of the first-world.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 7:23
"The United States should be a force of good in the world"
Captain America cartoons, much? The US should not be ANY kind of force in the world, and if you believe it will be a world superhero, then I've got to tell you: There is not Santa or Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Fuck your stinking anti-democratic country.
- The spirit of George Carlin (revisiting Earth from Heaven)
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 7:32
>>17
>>This also sets the precedent that we can invade any country (without congressional approval, via the UN) in the event of civil unrest, protests, etc etc.
It's funny you should say that. That's actualy part of the new NATO dogma. I've been trying to find more in fo on it quite unsuccessfully.
Here's what we know so far: A video from the Greek army leaked where there was an army excercise simulating rioting. There was quite a fuss because in the scenarion of the excercise the army is facing the citizens. Now, there is a video from the greek news (unfortunately in greek), where a greek general trying to explain the situation and calm people down clearly says that this excercise was part of a nato excercise and that the new nato dogma, since there is very little chance of a non-nato country invading a nato country, is to prepare to face public unrest (hence this exercise), to prepare for scenarios where immigrands arriving in an area become too many and need to be 'handled' somehow and last but definately not least, they're throuwing a lot of resources towards the internet, where surveilance will become a part of the NATO role.
The way I interpret this is that since ther is no great enemy like the USSR during the cold war, the army is not disbanded, instead it takes down it's mask and now that the external enemies are done with it is ready to face the internal enemy. And this progressively will include everyone.
Scary shit, init?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 7:52
Here's the video I was talking about. Hope someone can translate it because there is a ton of usefull information in it.
In Libya people are going to die regardless of intervention. Gaddafi lost his ability to guarantee peace and stability, so there's no point in choosing to save him instead of the rebels.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 19:28
>>23
If you notice the 'protesters' at some point are calling out "We want peace" !
Anyway, yes it's a controller excercise in a Greek camp near Kilkis and the scenario is that of a NATO (not UN or EU) operation in the case of civil arrest.
I really hope someone translates it for the rest to understand.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-22 20:29
Captain America cartoons, much?
Wait, there was a cartoon series? 80s campy, hopefully? point me in the right direction!
YES I would rather have them bend over backwards. It's a DICTATORSHIP! It's like coming to 4chan and start whining about all the CP, or coming to Rapeland and start whining about all the rapes. If people in Lybia don't like it, THEY CAN LEAVE! They can do a thousand healthier things than to wave "Fuck your totalitarian regime!" signs at guns. They KNOW they'll get shot if they do that. How much more would they need to ask to be massacred, for you to understand that they're the provocateurs here?
To put it short: Libya is under attack by moralfaggots. They could have left, but they wanted to turn Libya into faggot-opia by getting shot, and then suddenly it's NOT their fault? ...because they're FAGGOTS???
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-23 15:48
>>28 I have to agree with you. It's like all the Jews that were stuck in the normalcy bias in Germany. A small portion of them left because they knew what was going to happen, but a good majority were in immense denial and stayed.
This is a bit different, and this is where I disagree. The people are standing up for their rights, and are knowingly putting their lives on the line for freedom.
btw - gonna watch the greek videos as soon as i can. will post later.
>It's part of the new NATO dogma you say? yeah please share if you can find it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-23 21:54
>>29
>It's part of the new NATO dogma you say? yeah please share if you can find it.
I've been trying to man but no luck other than the interview of the greek general in the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m62AkjkDWU&feature=related ) He says that it was signed in lisbon in nov 2010. He says that after the 20 years past the cold war there very little chances a nato country would be invaded, so the new dogma is to turn nato forces towards the internet (hackers and leaks and I assume there is a major plan about controlling the internet) and 'civil unrests' (turning the military against the civilians and 'controlling' migration.
WE NEED TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS PEOPLE!!!
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-23 22:59
>>28
Do you realize how enormotarded this is? You understand nothing of the situation in Lybia. Firstly they didn't wave signs at machine guns, first various political cliques that had been pushed underground heard about the protests in Egypt and decided to tread the water in the hopes of starting protests in Libya while taking care not to alert authorities of their involvement, when to their suprise they found a very large number of people trying to find fellow sympathisers and organize rallies in Libya they took the opportunity and started being more open calling the majority of the population to take to the streets, the more people out in plain view the less bravery was needed for opponents to gadaffi to come out and so it escalated until millions were openly opposing the regime, in this environment various armed groups were free to swim around among the population like fish and intimidate local police and small military garrisons into turning tails to prepare for when Gadaffi reorganizes and begins his counter-revolution.
>>31
Here's a buck; buy yourself a few more periods on me.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 4:15
>>32
I was just pointing out that you were wrong, that's all.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 5:52
>>33
Mr. 32 isn't me - that's just a troll.
It doesn't matter in how much detail you describe it: They started it. They escalated it. They're asking for it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 6:22
>>34
Yeah, isn't Libya in Africa, the country Obama comes from? They should have kept their niggermuslims to themselves.
tell me /pol
do you support the military intervention on libya? why?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-25 19:47
>>39
No.
Let 'em duke it out on their own. We don't need to be there. We have no real strategic interest. We don't get much oil from them.
Would we bomb Saudi Arabia when they start killing their own people? Not hardly... Would we bomb China if they started killing their own? Not hardly..
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-25 20:16
lotsa oil in libya
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-25 22:17
>>41
Libya supplies 2% of the worlds oil.
The U.S. buys a very small fraction of it's oil from Libya.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-25 23:10
>>42
Considering how much R&D goes into increasing a business's profits by 1%, that's a lot.
only one in fifty barrels lol that's NOTHING
</ignoramus>
Name:
Johnchuk2011-04-06 4:41
how about if in the midst of arguing about cutting near a hundred billion dollars in taxes we spend around ten billion to save a hundred thousand humn lives and potentialy democracy in the country. Or how about we do something because its the right thing to do and not because it serves us?
Name:
Johnchuk2011-04-06 4:53
>>16
yeah capitalism made egypt a democracy just like its doing for china....oh wait.
This is a massive youth moviemnt that started with labor rights and moved on to human rights. I'm not sure plutocrats had as much to do with its success as the facebook kids who risked everything for what they beleived in.