|
|
Post by AliciaFox#1fan4life on Mar 19, 2011 11:41:15 GMT -5
Are they trying to oust Ghadafi? This crap is crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 12:05:56 GMT -5
There is a no fly zone in place. France is currently bombing them. We'll all take turns doing it.
We want Qaddafi gone as soon as possible.
Also he will be charged with potential war crimes and crimes against humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 12:13:50 GMT -5
It was bad, then it got ugly. Now it's getting uglier. Interesting that Obama is taking such a hardline on Libya after doing nothing in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 12:16:20 GMT -5
It was bad, then it got ugly. Now it's getting uglier. Interesting that Obama is taking such a hardline on Libya after doing nothing in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. It was much worse, a thousand times worse in Libya than it was in Egypt and Tunisia. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Tebow™ on Mar 19, 2011 12:29:48 GMT -5
Oh lord France? Why don't they just surrender now?
Just getting that out of the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 12:43:30 GMT -5
It was bad, then it got ugly. Now it's getting uglier. Interesting that Obama is taking such a hardline on Libya after doing nothing in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. It was much worse, a thousand times worse in Libya than it was in Egypt and Tunisia. So we only stand up against dictators once the dictator reaches a certain level of "badness". It's funny really. When the WMD argument fell apart Bush argued that we have a duty to promote freedom throughout the world and remove dictators when we find them. Bush was blasted for that argument. Now Obama is using the same argument. He's arguing that we need to toss Qadaffi to the curb because he's oppressing his people and murdering them in cold blood. Argument didn't fly when Bush made it. Seems like it's working for Obama though. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 12:48:34 GMT -5
It was much worse, a thousand times worse in Libya than it was in Egypt and Tunisia. So we only stand up against dictators once the dictator reaches a certain level of "badness". It's funny really. When the WMD argument fell apart Bush argued that we have a duty to promote freedom throughout the world and remove dictators when we find them. Bush was blasted for that argument. Now Obama is using the same argument. He's arguing that we need to toss Qadaffi to the curb because he's oppressing his people and murdering them in cold blood. Argument didn't fly when Bush made it. Seems like it's working for Obama though. All dictators should be run out of town. The argument always falls apart for Bush and Obama and everyone else because they don't go after dictators that we give money to or that give us stuff. We didn't go after Mubarak because we were friends with him. We go after Qaddafi because we don't like him. We won't go after Saudi Arabia because of the oil we get from them. We won't go after the one in Yemen because they've helped us out in fighting Al Qaeda. It is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by roddypiper on Mar 19, 2011 12:59:19 GMT -5
I heard that Libya asked for a cease fire. After that the price for a barrel of oil dropped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 13:00:15 GMT -5
So we only stand up against dictators once the dictator reaches a certain level of "badness". It's funny really. When the WMD argument fell apart Bush argued that we have a duty to promote freedom throughout the world and remove dictators when we find them. Bush was blasted for that argument. Now Obama is using the same argument. He's arguing that we need to toss Qadaffi to the curb because he's oppressing his people and murdering them in cold blood. Argument didn't fly when Bush made it. Seems like it's working for Obama though. All dictators should be run out of town. The argument always falls apart for Bush and Obama and everyone else because they don't go after dictators that we give money to or that give us stuff. We didn't go after Mubarak because we were friends with him. We go after Qaddafi because we don't like him. We won't go after Saudi Arabia because of the oil we get from them. We won't go after the one in Yemen because they've helped us out in fighting Al Qaeda. It is ridiculous. That's my point though. People called Bush out for his hypocrisy in not going after the dictators who gave us money. No one seems to be calling Obama out on his. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 13:03:40 GMT -5
All dictators should be run out of town. The argument always falls apart for Bush and Obama and everyone else because they don't go after dictators that we give money to or that give us stuff. We didn't go after Mubarak because we were friends with him. We go after Qaddafi because we don't like him. We won't go after Saudi Arabia because of the oil we get from them. We won't go after the one in Yemen because they've helped us out in fighting Al Qaeda. It is ridiculous. That's my point though. People called Bush out for his hypocrisy in not going after the dictators who gave us money. No one seems to be calling Obama out on his. Maybe because we are not invading Libya. We aren't the ones who started this. We aren't the ones who pushed for strikes against them. We haven't been lied to about the reasoning for strikes against him. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 13:04:08 GMT -5
I heard that Libya asked for a cease fire. After that the price for a barrel of oil dropped. Qaddafi declared a cease fire. About an hour later he broke it and continued to kill his people. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 13:32:34 GMT -5
That's my point though. People called Bush out for his hypocrisy in not going after the dictators who gave us money. No one seems to be calling Obama out on his. Maybe because we are not invading Libya. We aren't the ones who started this. We aren't the ones who pushed for strikes against them. We haven't been lied to about the reasoning for strikes against him. So, if we join up with other countries who want to play world police, that's ok. But if we go ask other countries to help us play world police, that's not ok. |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Mar 19, 2011 13:36:01 GMT -5
Maybe because we are not invading Libya. We aren't the ones who started this. We aren't the ones who pushed for strikes against them. We haven't been lied to about the reasoning for strikes against him. So, if we join up with other companies who want to play world police, that's ok. But if we go ask other countries to help us play world police, that's not ok. Exactly ;D |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 13:41:02 GMT -5
Maybe because we are not invading Libya. We aren't the ones who started this. We aren't the ones who pushed for strikes against them. We haven't been lied to about the reasoning for strikes against him. So, if we join up with other companies who want to play world police, that's ok. But if we go ask other countries to help us play world police, that's not ok. No one is invading Libya, they are just bombing places so Qaddafi cannot continue to kill his people. They aren't sending ground troops in to search for him and capture him. They are leaving that up to the rebels. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 14:09:42 GMT -5
So, if we join up with other companies who want to play world police, that's ok. But if we go ask other countries to help us play world police, that's not ok. No one is invading Libya, they are just bombing places so Qaddafi cannot continue to kill his people. They aren't sending ground troops in to search for him and capture him. They are leaving that up to the rebels. So are we playing world police here or not? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 14:16:51 GMT -5
No one is invading Libya, they are just bombing places so Qaddafi cannot continue to kill his people. They aren't sending ground troops in to search for him and capture him. They are leaving that up to the rebels. So are we playing world police here or not? We aren't the police chief, we are just one of the officers. France is the police chief. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 14:25:20 GMT -5
So are we playing world police here or not? We aren't the police chief, we are just one of the officers. France is the police chief. So I go back to what I said earlier: We tell everyone to join up with us to oust a dictator - bad. Someone else asks us to join up with them to oust a dictator - good. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 15:25:44 GMT -5
We aren't the police chief, we are just one of the officers. France is the police chief. So I go back to what I said earlier: We tell everyone to join up with us to oust a dictator - bad. Someone else asks us to join up with them to oust a dictator - good. And I go back to what I said and that's we are not invading them, we will not be sending ground troops. We are just helping the rebels take Qaddafi down through air assault. They are the ground war. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 19, 2011 15:30:07 GMT -5
So, it's ok to be world police as long as ground troops aren't involved? Bombs away!! But this only applies to certain dictators. Dictators who basically pay us protection money, we leave alone. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 19, 2011 15:33:58 GMT -5
So, it's ok to be world police as long as ground troops aren't involved? Bombs away!! But this only applies to certain dictators. Dictators who basically pay us protection money, we leave alone. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. I'm not saying I agree with the policy of helping 'good' dictators. Years ago weren't you championing just bombing places? |
|
