Topic: Don't you know there's a war on? (Read 68861 times)

patito · « **Reply #440 on:** March 17, 2011, 04:13:12 PM »

I'd take a puppet government over millions dead, but that's just me. Then again I don't believe the US will actually involve themselves in ground fighting for this anyway.

Mongrel · « **Reply #441 on:** March 17, 2011, 05:27:46 PM »

Yeah, really I don't care if the US is going to end up supporting a puppet government (which I don't think will be the case*). The alternatives would have made Iraq circa spring 1991 look like a daycare.

*If you look at a map of Libya, the only regions with any population that didn't rebel are an irregular 300 km circle centred on Tripoli. Almost the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY - including every city of significant size other than Tripoli - rose in rebellion. I think these guys will be able to stand on their own. The invasion of Iraq may have been a complete and utter disaster, predicated entirely on lies, but in spite of everything it looks like they might actually turn out alright in the end. The situation in Libya is far more promising.

Mongrel · « **Reply #442 on:** March 17, 2011, 05:30:42 PM »

It'll be funny if they call this the Third Barbary War.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #443 on:** March 17, 2011, 08:32:07 PM »

Mongrel

Your entire argument is based around that the American invasion force will be strong enough to quelch Qaddafi, but not strong enough to resist the whims of the rebellion. That is bullshit. Once in, the American government will do what it damn well pleases. America is not and never has been interested in spreading peace and democracy around the globe. We are interested in making sure that America gets what America wants, which is usually pretty counter to whatever the rebels will want. We will simply trade out Qaddafi for someone who is the same but is more pliant to our needs.

Joxam · « **Reply #444 on:** March 17, 2011, 08:35:56 PM »

Of course, that's leaving out the years and years of occupation.

Brentai · « **Reply #445 on:** March 17, 2011, 08:46:54 PM »

If you want a picture of American history, imagine Uncle Sam punching himself in the face -- forever.

...wait shit the last part of that quote doesn't work now fuck.

TA · « **Reply #446 on:** March 17, 2011, 08:50:13 PM »

Quote from: Constantmean on March 17, 2011, 08:32:07 PM

Mongrel

Your entire argument is based around that the American invasion force will be strong enough to quelch Qaddafi, but not strong enough to resist the whims of the rebellion. That is bullshit. Once in, the American government will do what it damn well pleases. America is not and never has been interested in spreading peace and democracy around the globe. We are interested in making sure that America gets what America wants, which is usually pretty counter to whatever the rebels will want. We will simply trade out Qaddafi for someone who is the same but is more pliant to our needs.

Your entire argument is based around there being an American invasion force. Which there isn't. This is a UN-sanctioned operation under French command, with NATO support and Egyptian backing, and all that's being done is taking out Qaddafi's air force and leaving the ground war to the existing rebels - the resolution specifically rules out a foreign occupation force "of any form on any part of Libyan territory." This isn't Iraq.

Mongrel · « **Reply #447 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:17:07 AM »

What he said.

Don't let knee-jerk cynicism prevent you from reading about the actual facts.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #448 on:** March 18, 2011, 04:55:08 AM »

Hey, I wouldn't want to let a little thing like the history of imperialist powers crushing the spirit of rebellions allow me to temper my yee-haa acceptance of the neo-con view of policing the world. It's like 2003 all over again. But this time it'll be different, because x = y and ?????

Shinra · « **Reply #449 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:59:14 AM »

What part of 'this is a french-lead nato-backed UN resolution' do you not understand?

We didn't propose the idea, we're not in charge of the idea, and both the military and the executive branch of the government have gone so far as to say that they didn't want to get involved in the conflict. Sure, we could have vetoed it. And who do you think the international community would blame for the libyan genocide that would follow?

We have to trade with these people, you know.

Mongrel · « **Reply #450 on:** March 18, 2011, 02:59:25 PM »

No no.... it's all clear now. Because I made a joke invoking the Marines' Hymn, that means three divisions of them will be on that selfsame shore in twenty minutes, complete with little American flags and oil contracts.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #451 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:20:36 PM »

Let me put it this way: I'll believe that the UN resolution will be in good faith to actually help the ideals of the rebellion when I see it. It's just that to this point, the actions of the major imperialist nations of this world have never been in the interest of the people or democracy, they have been purely for the sake of economic and cultural expansion. And I doubt that Nicholas Sarkozy is the man to turn that around.

But go on, continue insisting that just little hits of war won't trigger a relapse in the conquest addicts.

Mongrel · « **Reply #452 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:50:25 PM »

I'll be as happy as you are to say "just you wait and see".

Brentai · « **Reply #453 on:** March 18, 2011, 06:49:11 PM »

Isn't Gaddafi a Western prop to begin with?

Mongrel · « **Reply #454 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:23:45 PM »

There's some speculation that the CIA helped him in back in '69, but that's unconfirmed in the true sense (as opposed to the nudge, wink, "we know NOOOOOTHING" sense). Even if it was the case it wasn't much help and he never received substantial US support.

There was a long streak when Gaddafi was about as popular as Khameni. Libya and Iran were the big sponsors of Islamic terror back in the 80's - the Berlin disco bombing in '86 and the Lockerbie disaster in '88 were both Libyan, as well as some other stuff. Then after Saddam bit the biscuit, Gaddafi decided to cave and play nice. Cowardice is one of his strong suits, a trend we can see continues today.

Gaddafi threw away all his WMDs and made some noises about behaving and renouncing terrorism, so Bush-and-Cheney funnelled him a couple of sheckels and a few toys (but not many) and let him back in the "nations club" (this last one was the important bit, since it removed all of the old long-term civil trade sanctions).

Royal☭ · « **Reply #455 on:** March 19, 2011, 01:42:02 PM »

So if the French are leading this thing, why the fuck are we the ones starting the bombing?

Also, gotta love the weasly reporting by the AP.

Quote

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement -- at least in the initial stages -- to helping protect French and other air missions.

That's the kind of information that only a deeply subservient media could pass on without asking any further questions about!

Of course, none of that matters when we have the opportunity to spend up to $1.2 billion a month on this thing

François · « **Reply #456 on:** March 19, 2011, 02:26:33 PM »

They seem to be taking down air defense facilities like radars and missiles so the pilots enforcing the no-fly won't get shot down. It's not like they're bombing palaces or supply depots. I'm not one to be overly lenient towards American military ambitions, but this does seem fairly reasonable so far.

Shinra · « **Reply #457 on:** March 19, 2011, 02:27:00 PM »

Quote from: Constantmean on March 19, 2011, 01:42:02 PM

So if the French are leading this thing, why the fuck are we the ones starting the bombing?

Maybe try a source that's a legitimate news organization rather than a blog.

Quote

A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.

I love the Huffington post but let's not pretend for a second that they're any more legitimate a news source than any other blog network.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #458 on:** March 19, 2011, 03:17:49 PM »

Uh, dude, that was an AP story they reposted.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #459 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:47:01 PM »

As the US rains down 110 tomahawk missiles of Democracy on the people of Libya, suddenly the Arab League has doubts about asking known mass-murders to, ahem, come into their countries and commit mass murder.

Since he's vowed, or at least insisted, that there won't be ground troops in Libya, maybe he can follow the Pakistan model and just send Predator Freedom Drones into the area to ensure that people are liberated from their oppressed lives. Hurray!

Soon the US will have deposed of Qaddafi, and allowed his former Minister of Justice to take his place. I can't see ANYTHING bad coming of that.

Meanwhile, keep cheerleading for the ~~3rd~~, ~~4th~~, ~~5th~~ I honestly can't remember which war in a muslim country guaranteed to continue a black hole of taxpayer money into some very rich hands.

Oh, also, the worst part of this war is that I am going to be a TOTAL DICK about it while we're involved.

News:

Author Topic: Don't you know there's a war on? (Read 68861 times)