French jets protecting Libyan rebels

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am saying that NATO forces successfully maintained a no fly zone with very few losses that resulted in a fairly positive end.

The idea that there must be genocide to qualify for international support is interesting.

I'm shocked that this many Americans (knowing we could easily help stop it) couldn't care less if 50k-100k people got slaughtered by their own armed forces. Would of been nice if someone else had done it. They wouldn't. It was up to the major democracies of the World to step up (together.) It's a fairly flat country, and you don't have to beg other countries to use their air space. Because we wouldn't stop guys on horseback from killing people in the Sudan? That's a reason not to do this?

[Danzig]

so, a couple pages past my question, and no good answer. i expected as much. i haven't seen a compelling reason yet for us engaging over there. i haven't seen much of a reason at all, let alone compelling. evil dictator and his civvies hurting. hell, that could encompass plenty of dictators and plenty of countries. so, why libya? because most of nato said so? because it takes all those countries' minds off their woes? because libya is a bad guy, with a bad leader? again, that description fits a variety of countries. i think it's ridiculous; i think once again we're letting the euros get us into something we don't have business in. it makes no sense. i think the powers that be figured no one would bitch about this particular guy and his country-unlike saudi arabia, bahrain, yemen, etc. an 'easy' target. to what end?

and so...our foreign policy contines to suck.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i like explosions and almost wish i'd gone into that type of career, but to what end are we engaged in libya? what's the aim, what's the point? what are we trying to accomplish with this action? i'm no fan of qaddafi, and don't care if he shuffles off this mortal coil tomorrow. but i'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do, or who we're trying to aid.

What? He was about to kill 50.k-100k people. Said he was gunna go house to house etc. If you don't see stopping that as being an important goal, then, o.k. No, they aren't slaughtering numbers like that in Bahrain, or Yemen. The reason we've struggled in both Iraq and Afghanistan is because the population didn't want us there. Look, from what we've seen, the Americans and the Euros actually hit some targets, and did some damage. That's a half miracle in itself. I say we gave them a chance. Tell ya what the smartest thing to do is. This Turk cockroach wants into the E.U. (real badly.) Need to get the Germans n' French to let him into the E.U. ( in return for Turkish troops coming in to force a ceasefire. ) We, and the Euros get out. Getting the French n' Germans to let the Turks join the E.U. will be difficult though.

The grandiose Gaddafi exaggerates and intimidates. He loves the spotlight and loves to play the villain.

He's a lightweight for a dictator. There isn't a solid plan to take him out of power. What we're doing is wasting money and making him and his associates money.

[somerfrost]

UN forces announced today that Libyan airforce and air defense systems have been totally destroyed/ rendered useless and emphasis is now shifting to ground forces.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

UN forces announced today that Libyan airforce and air defense systems have been totally destroyed/ rendered useless and emphasis is now shifting to ground forces.

Great.. Barrack will borrow a page from GWB and declare victory!!! And 10 years later and countless hundreds of BILLIONS we will still be there.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, a couple pages past my question, and no good answer. i expected as much. i haven't seen a compelling reason yet for us engaging over there. i haven't seen much of a reason at all, let alone compelling. evil dictator and his civvies hurting. hell, that could encompass plenty of dictators and plenty of countries. so, why libya? because most of nato said so? because it takes all those countries' minds off their woes? because libya is a bad guy, with a bad leader? again, that description fits a variety of countries. i think it's ridiculous; i think once again we're letting the euros get us into something we don't have business in. it makes no sense. i think the powers that be figured no one would bitch about this particular guy and his country-unlike saudi arabia, bahrain, yemen, etc. an 'easy' target. to what end?

and so...our foreign policy contines to suck.

You are right. Since when do "humanitarian" efforts start off with a missile attack?

[dellinger63]

FUBAR!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.metalinjection.net/tv/vie...-oildale-video

[dellinger63]

Riot?