Libya, here we come...

[Skiz]

Here we go... :dabs:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-idUKLDE71Q0MP20110317

[bigboab]

Why are they not interfering in Bahrain? Rebels are being killed there. This situation in Libya will inevitably move from a proposed no fly zone to to air strikes on air defences and possibly firing on any of Gadaffi forces trying to regain any ground. This has just been confirmed by an UK cabinet member talking on BBC as I type this. Sad.:cry:

[Snee]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

[999969999]

Why are they not interfering in Bahrain?

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

And what about the protesters in Iran? Or Yemen? No help for them, either.

Rebels are being killed there. This situation in Libya will inevitably move from a proposed no fly zone to to air strikes on air defences and possibly firing on any of Gadaffi forces trying to regain any ground. This has just been confirmed by an UK cabinet member talking on BBC as I type this. Sad.:cry:

Off to fight another war we won't win.

I guess we'll keep doing this sort of thing until our economy collapses to the point where we can no longer afford to do such things. Nothing else will stop us.

[999969999]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

But this President campaigned on a promise of ending the wars in the middle east.

Where are the anti-war protesters now?

What happened to them, now that Bush is out of office?

[Snee]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

But this President campaigned on a promise of ending the wars in the middle east.

Where are the anti-war protesters now?

What happened to them, now that Bush is out of office?
Presumably not protesting against Obama, since it's the UN. Early days, though. And for that matter, it might be something to do with the fact that this is not about hurf blurf nucular wmds.

[bigboab]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

Every war in the last 65 years has crossed my line. The days of the UK interfering in others 'wars' should have ended when the U.S. took over policing the world. We were told by the 'rebels' in Libya 'Westerners stay out! We don't want you'. Changed days. The last quote cry was ' They are firing back at us. We need help'.

Libya has asked for U.N. observers to be brought in to ensure that the ceasefire has been observed.

I realize that civilians are going to suffer in any war. Artillery mounted on the back of a four by fours used to take Benghazi and other towns apparently does not kill any civilians.

Watch the rules gradually changing in order to get rid of Gadaffi altogether.

[Snee]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

Every war in the last 65 years has crossed my line. The days of the UK interfering in others 'wars' should have ended when the U.S. took over policing the world. We were told by the 'rebels' in Libya 'Westerners stay out! We don't want you'. Changed days. The last quote cry was ' They are firing back at us. We need help'.

Libya has asked for U.N. observers to be brought in to ensure that the ceasefire has been observed.

I realize that civilians are going to suffer in any war. Artillery mounted on the back of a four by fours used to take Benghazi and other towns apparently does not kill any civilians.

Watch the rules gradually changing in order to get rid of Gadaffi altogether.

Not really disagreeing with not invading other nations for fun and profit, but if I were to grade the pretext to invasions, Iraq was far worse. Also, I should have quoted what I was responding to.

[mjmacky]

But this President campaigned on a promise of ending the wars in the middle east.

Where are the anti-war protesters now?

What happened to them, now that Bush is out of office?
Yeah man, we like need to stop... the UN war machine. We will no longer pay $0.20 to $0.42 on our caramel machiato latte frappe supreme to like, build up more UN army clones and bombs man!

[bigboab]

I should have quoted what I was responding to.

I realised my mistake after I posted. Senior moment.:lol:

It appears that as far as democracy is concerned the U.S.A. draws a line in the sand:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

[999969999]

But this President campaigned on a promise of ending the wars in the middle east.

Where are the anti-war protesters now?

What happened to them, now that Bush is out of office?
Yeah man, we like need to stop... the UN war machine. We will no longer pay $0.20 to $0.42 on our caramel machiato latte frappe supreme to like, build up more UN army clones and bombs man!

First, I don't drink "caramel machiato latte frappe supreme." I drink green tea. I plan to be around for a long, long time. My great grandfather on my dad's side of the family is 103 years old and still relatively healthy. He eats right and exercises, and I'm doing the same thing.

Second, isn't it interesting how war is okay as long as there is a leftist agenda and a leftist at the helm?

Third, I am against all of the modern wars because they have been a huge waste of our money and our lives.

Fourth, I don't give a damn about the Libyan people or anyone over in the middle east. If they want to free themselves from a dictator, they can do it on their own, without any help from us. We should not be involved in everyone's business. This is why we are so hated around the world.

And finally, I had to recently register with Selective Service, so, I also have a very personal interest in seeing that this war does not spread out of control to the point where people like me get drafted.

[devilsadvocate]

Second, isn't it interesting how war is okay as long as there is a leftist agenda and a leftist at the helm?

How do you come to that conclusion?

[mjmacky]

Yeah man, we like need to stop... the UN war machine. We will no longer pay $0.20 to $0.42 on our caramel machiato latte frappe supreme to like, build up more UN army clones and bombs man!First, I don't drink "caramel machiato latte frappe supreme." I drink green tea. I plan to be around for a long, long time...
So again, you're either trolling or you really do have a limited capability of separating reality from fantasy. I would check all your other posts but it seems like it would be a boring read.

[999969999]

First, I don't drink "caramel machiato latte frappe supreme." I drink green tea. I plan to be around for a long, long time...
So again, you're either trolling or you really do have a limited capability of separating reality from fantasy. I would check all your other posts but it seems like it would be a boring read.

Based upon your rather incoherent posts, I think you might very well be insane. But then, you are a self-described anarchist. So, potato, potata.

[j2k4]

So, potato, potata.

That would be po-tah-to, actually.

A potata is a 'poor tit' in ebonics vernacular.

[mjmacky]

Based upon your rather incoherent posts, I think you might very well be insane. But then, you are a self-described anarchist. So, potato, potata.
Anarchy is my ideology, not my lifestyle. In reality I practice apathy, much like everyone else. Also, did you not "get" the post? :slap:
You say potato, I say kill em! kill em all!

[Skiz]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

I don't want us doing any of it. I'd prefer it if we kindly, butted the fuck out.

[clocker]

I don't want us doing any of it. I'd prefer it if we kindly, butted the fuck out.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

War is big business, and Business is the business of America.
Yes, that is circular logic but it's worked perfectly for over a century.
There are markets to open/exploit, suppliers to cajole/command and assets/raw materials to protect.

Much is being made of the "open-endedness" of the Libya action (not to mention the rather casual way we just started bombing another country...I thought Congress was supposed to authorize that sort of thing) but I'm betting that vagueness is exactly the point.

Don tinfoil hat...
What better way to absorb an entire generation you don't want to educate and provide jobs and health care for than reinstate the draft to bulk up the enforcement arm of corporate America?

The cream of that crop can float into more lucrative private sector paramilitary enforcement.

The dregs will fall into privatized prisons and work.
1. Prisoners.
2. Underpants.
3.
4. Profit!

Everyone else carries on pretty much like now- marginally stable ( imagine your condition if a Japan-like disaster befell you...) and relentlessly distracted.

Today's America could not tolerate peace.
/recycles tinfoil...

[999969999]

On December 20, 2007, Obama said this...

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3G_7gpeJQ8&feature=player_embedded

[999969999]

Are any of you libs even the least bit discouraged about your illustrious ultra liberal president, who campaigned on promises to end the wars in the middle east, and shut down gitmo, is now starting another war?

[clocker]

I admit that Obama has been a major disappointment.
I voted for an "ultra-liberal" President and got a republican with a cute family.

[mjmacky]

Hey may be the president, but he doesn't run the country...

[Snee]

Are any of you libs even the least bit discouraged about your illustrious ultra liberal president, who campaigned on promises to end the wars in the middle east, and shut down gitmo, is now starting another war?

I thought it was the UN, and the effort spearheaded by France or something.

That Obama must have his fingers in many pies.

[Snee]

Really? This is a problem?

'Liberating' Iraq? Cool. Hanging out there for years? Good times.


But when the UN wants to do it, presumably with less of a 'fuck you world, we've got imaginary weapons to find' kind of attitude, that's where you draw the line?

I don't want us doing any of it. I'd prefer it if we kindly, butted the fuck out.

Yeah, sorry. I remembered an old argument, and thought you'd taken a greater part in it than you did.

Looked up the thread, and it seems as if a post got misinterpreted and a couple of us pounced on it.

[999969999]

I admit that Obama has been a major disappointment.
I voted for an "ultra-liberal" President and got a republican with a cute family.

That's what I'm hearing from a lot of liberals. I dare say Obama will be a one term president because a lot of demoralized Democrats will simply stay home on election night 2012. And then the socialist dreams of your imperious leader will be dismantled by the new president.

[999969999]

Are any of you libs even the least bit discouraged about your illustrious ultra liberal president, who campaigned on promises to end the wars in the middle east, and shut down gitmo, is now starting another war?

I thought it was the UN, and the effort spearheaded by France or something.

That Obama must have his fingers in many pies.

Sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that. Who's spending more on this war, France or the United States? It's us again. As usual.

[clocker]

The Obama I'm disappointed in is still infinitely preferable to any Republican.
Your dream of Democrats sitting out the next election to allow the right to gain even more power is ludicrous.

[999969999]

The Obama I'm disappointed in is still infinitely preferable to any Republican.
Your dream of Democrats sitting out the next election to allow the right to gain even more power is ludicrous.

Okay, it's a bet.

In November 2012, I will post in this thread and either gloat about a Republican victory, or I will take my hat off to you.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=clocker;3569451]Okay, it's a bet.

In November 2012...
I'd wager that by November 2012, you'll manage to either remain stagnant or regress mentally. I will be wagering my interest.

[999969999]

[QUOTE=999969999;3569453]
I'd wager that by November 2012, you'll manage to either remain stagnant or regress mentally. I will be wagering my interest.

And I'll bet you're just as insane as ever.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3569541]

And I'll bet you're just as insane as ever.
No, I'll definitely be even more insane brilliant than ever.

[999969999]

[QUOTE=999969999;3569616]
No, I'll definitely be even more insane brilliant than ever.

If that's what you call it, okay.

[bigboab]

The White House has refused to comment on reports President Obama has approved covert support for the opposition forces in Libya(BBC News tonight)

America suplying arms to Al Qaeda. Who would have thunk it?

[devilsadvocate]

The White House has refused to comment on reports President Obama has approved covert support for the opposition forces in Libya(BBC News tonight)
America suplying arms to Al Qaeda. Who would have thunk it?Do you have information that we don't?

[bigboab]

America suplying arms to Al Qaeda. Who would have thunk it?Do you have information that we don't?
No. The information is all there. Most people just see or hear what they want to. Gadaffi has been saying for a while that all these uprisings have been started with Al Qaeda backing. We can't listen to him though, he is the bad guy. On BBC news tonight on the killing of civilians by coalition bombing we had the following quote 'It is inevitable that when bombing to save civilians from being killed you are going to kill some civilians'. You can bet your life that quote will not be in any news repeats later. It is not in keeping with the 'Fox Style' reporting on this conflict.

[devilsadvocate]

While I'm sure AQ will be attempting to get involved in the uprising, basically your statement is nothing more than a personal theory and not actuality. If you have any actual proof then please show it to the rest of the world.

[999969999]

While I'm sure AQ will be attempting to get involved in the uprising, basically your statement is nothing more than a personal theory and not actuality. If you have any actual proof then please show it to the rest of the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

WASHINGTON -- In 2007, when American combat casualties were spiking in the bloodbath of the Iraq War, an 18-year-old laborer traveled from his home in eastern Libya through Egypt and Syria to join an al Qaeda terrorist cell in Iraq. He gave his name to al Qaeda operatives as Ashraf Ahmad Abu-Bakr al-Hasri. Occupation, he wrote: “Martyr.’’

Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

The informal alliance with violent Islamist extremist elements is a coming-home of sorts for the United States, which initially fought on the same side as the Libyan fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s, battling the Soviet Union.

According to a cache of al Qaeda documents captured in 2007 by U.S. special operations commandos in Sinjar, Iraq, hundreds of foreign fighters, many of them untrained young Islamic volunteers, poured into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. The documents, called the Sinjar documents, were collected, translated and analyzed at the West Point Counter Terrorism Center. Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, many from the city of Darnah. Others came from Surt and Misurata to the west.

On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge" of young men eager to kill Americans.

During 2006 and 2007, a total of 1,468 Americans were killed in combat and 12,524 were badly wounded, according to Pentagon records.

Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

The group was founded by Libyan mujahideen returning in the mid-1990s from Afghanistan, where they had gone to fight the Soviets’ Red Army. Building on a radical Islamist credo, they organized to fight the secular corruption of the Gaddafi regime. In 1996 they nearly succeeded in assassinating Gaddafi by attacking his motorcade with either a bomb or a rocket-propelled grenade which missed its target. The attack led to a severe crackdown by the regime. Many were imprisoned or disappeared, but the CIA still regards the group as one of the many franchises of al Qaeda, including al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is active in Algeria and elsewhere in North Africa.

Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist extremism. In diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, the region’s young men were said to have “nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local mosques are “laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support jihad," one diplomat reported.

U.S. officials declined to discuss the make-up of the anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya, and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment publicly. To be sure, extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the Iranian revolution to the Egyptian people’s overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. But others caution that in the chaotic jockeying for power that will ensue, whether or not Gaddafi is forced from power, eastern Libya’s extremist groups will emerge.

“Lingering civil conflict in Libya (certain to happen if Gaddafi clings to power) would create ample ground for radicalization and extremist recruitment," Yasser al-Shimy, an Egyptian diplomat who defected during the last days of the Mubarak regime, wrote recently. Protracted civil conflict “usually induces radicalization and chaos. In other words, Libya might turn into a giant Somalia: a failed state on Egypt's borders with radical groups taking advantage of the mayhem," al-Shimy wrote in the blog, Best Defense. Or as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday about the immediate future of Libya: “We don’t know what the outcome will be."

[mjmacky]

In case you have no time to read the story above, and they're a bit above 969's ability to analyze (which is effectively 0), I'll paraphrase it:
- Many Islamic radicals came into Iraq to join the anti-American fight, Libya had the highest per capita influx of radicals
- Eastern Libya has a high tendency to breed extremism
- Islamic Libyan Fighting Group fought against Soviets in Afghanistan, failed to assassinate Gaddafi and got picked apart by his regime. Remnants of their activity still exist in Yemen, Algeria, and North Africa.
- Good probability that extremists are a small portion of the anti-Gaddafi forces, and they've been in every uprising prior.

So, 969 thought this might be proof that AQ started the uprising, but it doesn't present that in any manner. Rather it just reaffirms the fact that AQ will try to be involved and there are some extremists within the movement.

[OlegL]

I know almost nothing about Libya except that it's ruled by the dictator Kadafi and protesters want democracy in Libya.

[mjmacky]

I know almost nothing about Libya except that it's ruled by the dictator Kadafi and protesters want democracy in Libya.

Thank you Oleg, this thread needs your help

[OlegL]

Can't help it much because, as I said, I know almost nothing about Libya.