Guest ezkerraldean Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Apparently UAE sent troops to Bahrain as well. Part of the Gulf Cooperation Council agreement according to a Qatari minister. Searching for news on Al-Jazeera about Qatar's participation is interesting. AJ are funded by Qatar's dictator. They do mention it--not shouting from the rooftops though. More emphasis is on Saudi's participation. Turkey are in on it too, now. Strange turn around as they were against the UN resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Guardian: 12.35am: Both CNN and al-Jazeera's correspondents in the centre of the city are now reporting sustained and constant anti-aircraft artillery firing into the skies over Tripoli, following heavy explosions, at after 2.30am local time in Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I wonder how many people the clever benevolent white man killed today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneaksta303 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 welcome to american Middle East ground war # 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 this reminds me an awful lot of our involvement in Bosnia. And coincidentally (or perhaps not) the last time a Democratic president was part of a war was under Clinton, and he too said he was doing it purely for humanitarian reasons i guess under different political parties we just know which strings to tug to get the populace to be ok with our invasion. For 9/11 it was the bloodthirsty feelings americans had and they did it for retaliation and later 'defense'. democrats just say we need to save someone through bombing campaigns and it usually works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 ok im willing to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the no fly zone in libya, but theres no fucking way obama wanted this so close to the next election.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Umm did you miss the bit in Bosnia about ethnic cleansing? What about Somalia - I know you lot (the US) weren't involved, but do you think Somalia is better off for the UN withdrawing their troops after the Belgians suffered some casualties? You can't compare this to Iraq - there were no people in Iraq who were revolting against Saddam. Several books have been written by Iraqi sources of how much better life was under Saddam than under American occupation. Libya has people actually fighting against the Qaddafi regime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Umm did you miss the bit in Bosnia about ethnic cleansing? the perspective i was coming from is more of a, yes we know there are bad dictators around the world who do bad things. I don't think it's out of line in the slightest to suggest there may be an ulterior motive for doing this and that people have been planning invasion game theory in Libya for years to get it's natural resources. I'm not saying that the people of Libya or Bosnia are being horribly suppressed at best or massacred at worst, i'm saying that this is much more complex and not black and white as the UN, Britain the United States and France are making it out to be. It's only natural they would push the humanitarian angle as hard as possible, but i honestly don't think our leaders care that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 i think if that were they case they would've acted a lot sooner. the fact that it took so long kinda tells you that they were hesitant as to whether giving a shit or not. but of course some people will see opportunities in this to push their agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 , but theres no fucking way obama wanted this so close to the next election.. Alternate realities aside, have you watched US politics over the last 20 years ?? This can't but help his candidacy amongst the guntoting freakbase that is the swing vote. Sure that can be ground away by precise propaganda, but still. Right now it helps a cause, which is a] secure the massive oil reserve. and b] git that teh gleh. many people dead and it's all your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiffanyHalderman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 In a comp class last week, the instructor was trying to force a discussion in class and she asked us to write a 900 word response to the situation in Libya and asked us to propose a solution. Jokingly I wrote that we should just bomb everything that isn't the US. Unfortunately I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 This seems like a no brainer. Secure oil and support revolutionaries, increase international reputation especially in the Mid East/North Africa. I would be surprised if the US didn't have airstrips in Libya after this one, decreasing the dependance on Israel and bases in unstable places, Afghanistan, Iraq, for a quick response presence in that region. Also, with Mubarak gone they may need another nation to export detainees for 'interrogation', one of the reasons I hardly saw mentioned as to why it took so long for the US to support his resignation. The chances of Libya stabilizing soon after all this seems fairly high given that there is an already a full blown revolution underway. I have no doubt that this will help Obama in the next election. This gives the GOP and the Dems something exchange hand jobs over and some lucky Libyan gets to feel the warm arm of Uncle Sam in his pooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 , but theres no fucking way obama wanted this so close to the next election.. Alternate realities aside, have you watched US politics over the last 20 years ?? This can't but help his candidacy amongst the guntoting freakbase that is the swing vote. Sure that can be ground away by precise propaganda, but still. Right now it helps a cause, which is a] secure the massive oil reserve. and b] git that teh gleh. many people dead and it's all your fault. how else would you explain america dragging its feat on this thing? (until now, of course). plus theres still the potential for this to turn into a complete quagmire. also, the gun toting freaks will never like obama, no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 How complicit do you guys think wikileaks has been in all of this? The Cables were no doubt embarrassing for the Middle East as well as the US. Revelations about bizarre behaviors, rock star life styles, crack teams of sexy female body guards, hungarian nurse trysts, renegade sons, etc. A part of me wonders, with the lack of any real revelations contained within the Embassy Cables if the release was a calculated false flag to destabilize the whole region and prepare it for colonization. I certainly think that in the end it has decreased popular opinion of western opponents more than it has for the west itself. The only real potential fallout I see for America lies in the treatment of Manning and what seems to be a rather transparent arrest, extradition and detention of Assange. The irony would be if Assange is detained and then processed in a now US friendly facility in one of the Arab nations his organization helped to 'free'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 i don't think Wikileaks is a 'calculated false flag' , if there was any evidence whatsoever to show that it was i would be open to it. but so far the only basis for it is that Wikileaks has stirred shit up in the world. I agree with your previous post btw but i also take issue with you saying 'with the lack of any revelations' in the cables. They have revealed quite a lot. from Salon.com today An emphatic part of the White House messaging about the bombing in Libya is that the operation is truly international in character. But it's quickly becoming clear that the bombing campaign -- at least so far -- is almost entirely an American operation, albeit one that has been packaged to give it an international look. It's a dissonance that brings back memories of George W. Bush's much-mocked "coalition of the willing." The rhetoric from the administration has consistently referred to the U.S. playing a "support" role in a large coalition. As Hillary Clinton said yesterday in France, referring to the Security Council resolution that authorizes protection of civilians in Libya: "So let me be very clear about the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of Resolution 1973." President Obama, in what was obviously a carefully choreographed move, did not himself announce the beginning of the bombing. Indeed, when the news was announced by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Obama was on an uncanceled trip to Brazil. Obama's brief statement from Brasilia referred to a "broad coalition" that "brings together many of our European and Arab partners." He said he had authorized "military action in Libya in support of an international effort." Obama used the words "international" and "coalition" a total of ten times in a statement that lasted just three minutes. The grandstanding was left to Sarkozy, who had ordered French planes to make the first flights over Libya -- before U.S. aircraft got involved. "Along with our Arab, European and North American partners, France has decided to play its part before history," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 also, the gun toting freaks will never like obama, no matter what. I could see some of the more moderate gun toters changing there minds, or at least not turning up in the same numbers at the polls if this is cut and dry, doesn't turn into another US occupation and brings back that feeling of 'the good old days' of the American military dominance of Gulf Storm Pt 1. The Democratic base should gain some momentum with this as well and actually turn up to vote. Frankly I would be happiest if Palin somehow takes it and finally drives this whole thing into a collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUZ7e90Fo80&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 i don't think Wikileaks is a 'calculated false flag' , if there was any evidence whatsoever to show that it was i would be open to it. but so far the only basis for it is that Wikileaks has stirred shit up in the world. I agree with your previous post btw but i also take issue with you saying 'with the lack of any revelations' in the cables. They have revealed quite a lot. To be fair it's only paranoia really, I wouldn't put it past them, but realistically I don't think it's the case. There was some relevant information in the Cables, I shouldn't be so dramatic. Hilary clinton using diplomats as spies to steal credit card information stood out particularly to me. But I guess I found it disappointing, as I think it's really only confirmed a lot of behaviors that people had assumed were common place in international politics. That and I doubt there will be very many real hard consequences for American Politicians. I could be just cynical I admit, I truly hope for more, but sadly I don't believe it. I don't really hope Palin takes us all back 3000 years, but occasionally I do feel we might be better off that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inteeliguntdesign Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I don't really understand the Arab League. They supported the resolution, member states have supplied planes, but their leader spoke out against it. I mean, I can understand why Russia and China are against it. They don't want any precedents that could cause the Chechnyans or Tibetans to get similar ideas again. Ho hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 The Arab League is a mystery. One day they surpress their own people. The next day they support a no-fly zone out of humanitarian consideration. How about a no-fly zone for the entire middle east? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 teh gleh. many people dead and it's all your fault. Err no, that would be the dictator with the massive ego and the hot swedish masseuse actually. In a comp class last week, the instructor was trying to force a discussion in class and she asked us to write a 900 word response to the situation in Libya and asked us to propose a solution. Jokingly I wrote that we should just bomb everything that isn't the US. Unfortunately I was right. Oooh controversial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 what I wanna know is what's the deal with the swedish masseuse? I always got the strong impression Khaddafi (Gadhafi, whatev) was g-a-y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakapo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 what I wanna know is what's the deal with the swedish masseuse? I always got the strong impression Khaddafi (Gadhafi, whatev) was g-a-y He's an arab so there's nothing more heterosexual than sticking your penis up a young boy's arse, but I suspect he swings both ways. And since Gaddafi loves his historical hyperbole and called one of his sons Hannibal we've totally missed a trick by not calling it 'Operation Scipio Africanus'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.