Libya under Attack

[A Desolate Soul]

http://www.newsnow.lk/top-story/libya-under-attack
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/uk-missiles-fired-at-libyan-targets-2247114.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794468

wow o.o

 

[evanescencefan91]

ya that's pretty scary,

but the worst part is because the daily show is on break, I don' have john stewart's witty commentary on the subject to comfort me

....ok that was kinda bad insensitive joke i apologize,

i just saw that on msn, i really hope this doesn't continue to escalate

 

[frey12]

I have no hope for the U.S. government we are rapidly falling into fascism/totalitarianism.

 

[A new life]

I have no hope for the U.S. government we are rapidly falling into fascism/totalitarianism.

Wow, I thought I was the only one.

 

[SophiaGrace]

It sounds like a lot of nations are joining in on this attack. Canada. UK. France. and USA. Lots of nations. Not just the USA.

Actually it sounds like chaos and makes me nervous that WW3 will break out. :/

 

[A Desolate Soul]

i don't even understand why the U.S. has a congress if the president is just going to fire missiles anyways >.> So far Obama said "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya." but i'm just going to assume for now that's a lie.

 

[evanescencefan91]

um but didn't bush, and regean, and countless other presidents also fire missiles?

truman, launched two atomic bombs!

 

[Kenny]

Funny Obama was opposed to attacking Iraq to take out a dictator who killed thousands of his own people.

Then he attacks Libya to take out a dictator who kills thousands of his own people.

 

[Minus]

I thought the states attacked Iraq to get their weapons of mass destruction.
Some disagreed about their existence and as such opposed the plan.

 

[Kenny]

I thought the states attacked Iraq to get their weapons of mass destruction.
Some disagreed about their existence and as such opposed the plan.

Yes, Minus, as we all remember, that was the original justification. However many compelling arguments were made later that he needed to be removed for his crimes against humanity and for killing, raping, and maiming hundreds of thousands of people. Obama is one of the people who were unswayed even by that argument. He has also since then ever refused to admit it is a good thing that Saddam was removed from power. Yet he employs similar thinking in Libya to that which he could not formulate regarding Iraq.

The point here is politicians and political expedience, not retarded left vs. right.

 

[Minus]

So your president is going to be wrong no matter which way he goes?

 

[evanescencefan91]

Saddam was removed years before Obama was elected, and the troops were there to r
Try to re stabilize the country
so this isn't a matter of dictators and hypocrisy

 

[Brian]

How do you tell when a president is telling lies?

Check if he's breathing.

How do you tell if a president is telling **** lies?

Listen for the words 'promise' or 'commitment'.


100% accurate, no exceptions. Also applicable to Senators and Congressmen.



Ahem, anyway. We'll see how it goes, I guess. I would suggest that there are underlying motives behind the whole ordeal, but all of these uprisings in that part of the world really seem to be genuine movements of the people for a change. I do support the timely destruction of despots and violent dictators...but I think it's absurd the UN waited so long to take action.

The rebels in Libya had a window of opportunity where they had the element of surprise on their side and the upper hand in the fight. But the Libyan military gathered its self together and achieved organization and gained momentum, against which the poorly armed and poorly trained rebels had no chance. The UN could have helped the rebels maintain their initial advantage with a few well-placed cruise missiles and some bombing sorties. Their procrastination was foolish...on the surface, anyway. At the end of the day the UN does not exist to promote freedom or prosperity of the people in the world, so in all actuality they were very successful in their mission by choosing to wait.

 

[Bread]

Politicians be damned. First thing that popped into my head:

[video=youtube]

'The missiles are flying. Hallelujah.'

 

[slappopkarl]

The colenol must be stopped, he is a horrible human and must be took from this earth.

 

[Poguesy]

Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels

 

[Elgin]

How do you tell when a president is telling lies?

Check if he's breathing.

How do you tell if a president is telling **** lies?

Listen for the words 'promise' or 'commitment'.


100% accurate, no exceptions. Also applicable to Senators and Congressmen.



Ahem, anyway. We'll see how it goes, I guess. I would suggest that there are underlying motives behind the whole ordeal, but all of these uprisings in that part of the world really seem to be genuine movements of the people for a change. I do support the timely destruction of despots and violent dictators...but I think it's absurd the UN waited so long to take action.

The rebels in Libya had a window of opportunity where they had the element of surprise on their side and the upper hand in the fight. But the Libyan military gathered its self together and achieved organization and gained momentum, against which the poorly armed and poorly trained rebels had no chance. The UN could have helped the rebels maintain their initial advantage with a few well-placed cruise missiles and some bombing sorties. Their procrastination was foolish...on the surface, anyway. At the end of the day the UN does not exist to promote freedom or prosperity of the people in the world, so in all actuality they were very successful in their mission by choosing to wait.

I had stuff I wanted to say but you said a lot more way better than I would have. So I'll just piggy back your words and say, I agree with them.

 

[Kenny]

Barack Obama's own words in reference to The Iraq War:

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war."

- NBC's Today Show on January 11, 2007

Q: Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops?

A: "No, the President does not have that power. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law."

- Boston Globe on December 20, 2007

It's strange how this position doesn't hold true for the current conflict in Libya.

 

[Kenny]

Why the hell does myBB double post?