Thread: Is There Really Any Use In Going To Libya

* (conservative bloggers)

Conservative bloggers got nothing on that Bill O'Reilly mouthpiece. The blatant propaganda I see coming out of Fox News makes me shake my head. It was awesome when Bill O'Reilly went on the Daily Show/Colbert Report and they went on his show. IIRC, Colbert smoked him. He's just too awesome for anyone to go toe-to-toe with.

I said in another thread that I think it's a mistake for the UN to get involved with Libya because it will look like more western chest-thumping. Makes them look too eager to jump into conflicts over there.

Originally Posted by caelum

Conservative bloggers got nothing on that Bill O'Reilly mouthpiece. The blatant propaganda I see coming out of Fox News makes me shake my head. It was awesome when Bill O'Reilly went on the Daily Show/Colbert Report and they went on his show. IIRC, Colbert smoked him. He's just too awesome for anyone to go toe-to-toe with.

I missed that one, would have liked to have seen it though.

I said in another thread that I think it's a mistake for the UN to get involved with Libya because it will look like more western chest-thumping. Makes them look too eager to jump into conflicts over there.

I think the operative word here is "look". How important is that vs. taking action deemed critical?

Yeah, that's a good point. It could be that Libya's situation deserves to be intervened with, but is it politically wise for the UN to do that, it being the right thing aside? I actually think it's a bad move on both fronts, politically and it being deserved, because they haven't established sound reasons for getting in there.

"Ghadafi will commit untold atrocities to his people," is what I keep hearing, but how well do they know that? Are they just saying that to justify what they know is a bad move? I haven't read the news for a few days now but last time I checked Ghadafi hasn't slaughtered protesters.

I told you so.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Our only remaining options are:

1) Go in with ground forces and finish off the duck (not likely at this point)

Or

2) Train the opposition the way we trained Iraqi, Afghan, and Viet forces.

Qawacky Duck's forces have adapted to the air strikes. Instead of using tanks, they're loading big guns on the backs of pickups. Opposition forces are on the run. NATO acknowledges that the Duck's forces will prevail, unless NATO sends in ground forces.

Geez

Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya, as U.S. Considers Aiding Rebels, Sources Say - FoxNews.com#

There always must be some target for hatred? The liberals have the conservatives, and the conservations have the liberals. This crap is getting so old it's becoming pathetic.

And then everyone feeds into the fray until it starts to look like the cat chasing his tail. In human beings, why is the need for conflict and the desire to harm much greater than harmony and peace? It begins with idleness, dosen't it? With one boy from one town who has nothing to do hurling a rock at another boy from a different town, and then the other boy tossing rocks back until, before anyone realizes it, the two towns have become involved and a tremendous mess ensues (which is where America is at now).

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all follow the simple message from someone who is much wiser than any of us. That message being: "If you don't have anything nice to say about anyone, don't say anything at all." But, then, again, if we did take the message literally, it might bring peace. But that wouldn't do any good because none of us would know how to behave beneath peaceful skies.

Life without blame; life without targets; life with harmony--where's the arsenic?

Originally Posted by Blood

I missed that one, would have liked to have seen it though.

Fox News hasn't even released the full interview online with Stewart, it's hilarious. But, I gotta say, of all the loudmouth conservatives, O'Reilly is at least open to letting people of opposing views on his show and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Qawacky Duck's forces have adapted to the air strikes. Instead of using tanks, they're loading big guns on the backs of pickups. Opposition forces are on the run. NATO acknowledges that the Duck's forces will prevail, unless NATO sends in ground forces.

Heh, that's how the Chadians kicked their !@#$%.

And the prospect of the CIA taking out Ghadafi and/or his ministers... lopping the head off the snake...

Originally Posted by caelum

I said in another thread that I think it's a mistake for the UN to get involved with Libya because it will look like more western chest-thumping. Makes them look too eager to jump into conflicts over there.

The UN is a joke. It needs to be dismantled and the property turned into a homeless shelter.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

There always must be some target for hatred? The liberals have the conservatives, and the conservations have the liberals. This crap is getting so old it's becoming pathetic.

And then everyone feeds into the fray until it starts to look like the cat chasing his tail.

That’s what it looks like to the truly confused and clueless.

Life without blame; life without targets; life with harmony--where's the arsenic?

What about life without drama queens? That’s a good one.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

The UN is a joke. It needs to be dismantled and the property turned into a homeless shelter.

You're exactly right Robin. That's a damn fine argument you have there!

Originally Posted by Dudester

I told you so.


Qawacky Duck's forces have adapted to the air strikes. Instead of using tanks, they're loading big guns on the backs of pickups. Opposition forces are on the run. NATO acknowledges that the Duck's forces will prevail, unless NATO sends in ground forces.

Geez

You're not fooling me Dude! "I told you so" ha! Next time try quoting your source before hand.

__________________________________________________ ___________

17 March 2011

---- Security Council--- SC/10200

Security Council
6498th Meeting (Night)

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary

Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.

If all else fails, then *N.A.T.O.'s only remaining optional measures are:

1) Go in with ground forces and finish off the duck (not likely at this point)

Or

2) Train the opposition the way we trained Iraqi, Afghan, and Viet forces.


* (Really just the U.S.)

__________________________________________________ ___________

How about we put the far-left and the far-right into bear costumes and turn them loose into the nearest woods during hunting season? And arm the hunters with bazookas.

What a lovely world it would be.