Libyan Military have the right to defend itself? - GoFuckYourself.com

PornoMonster · 03-28-2011, 08:27 PM

At what point does the Libyan Military have the right to defend itself?
Obama said he wasn?t targeting Gadhafi, well I mean he said he isn?t after he said he was.
When does this turn from ?protecting? innocent civilians, to
backing a regime change?

Are we protecting the Protesters or the Rebels?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

Seth Manson · 03-28-2011, 09:14 PM

They have the right to defend themselves at all times.

But as long as they keep attacking the civilians, they will be attacked by NATO. They are welcome to defend themselves. Its more fun if they try to defend themselves.

dazzling · 03-28-2011, 09:53 PM

If this was really about protecting civilains why does NATO not also bomb the Al-Qaeda supported rebels? The rebels are killing people, the rebels are bombing people, the rebels are killing civilians...so why is it ok for the rebels to kill people? FACT...this has nothing to do with protecting civilians, this is about Obama installing an Al-Qaeda led regime in Libya.

PornoMonster · 03-28-2011, 10:13 PM

Hold a Sign = Civilians
Hold a gun = Rebel
I think several are playing both rolls, depending on if the tanks or cameras are coming.

We all know the true answer, it was never about the civilians. If you believe it is, I have a bridge to sell you.

kane · 03-28-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Hold a Sign = Civilians
Hold a gun = Rebel
I think several are playing both rolls, depending on if the tanks or cameras are coming.

We all know the true answer, it was never about the civilians. If you believe it is, I have a bridge to sell you.

I would say it has something to do with protecting civilians. Essentially Obama is in a position he can't win. If he did nothing then the republicans would attack him for standing by and letting civilians get killed and not helping them fight for democracy. They were on him for a few days before we started the bombing, it would have only gotten worse. If he bombs (as we have) then some from the left attack him for getting us into another war when we already have two going and some from the right attack him for spending money on this attack that we don't have.

He couldn't win no matter what he did.

In the end it is at least somewhat about protecting civilians in hopes that they will overthrow the leadership, take power and be our friends. So it is helping them out with a hope of it one day paying a dividend.

blackmonsters · 03-28-2011, 10:52 PM

Just remember who pushed for the no fly zone!

It was not The United States Of America!

The USA is however part of NATO, and not backing NATO would not make much
sense when NATO has been backing the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade!

Turning NATO's request down now would almost be a traitorous act.

So just remember who we had to follow to fulfill our obligation to NATO.
They sure fucking remember us when it comes to Iraq.

theking · 03-28-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I would say it has something to do with protecting civilians. Essentially Obama is in a position he can't win. If he did nothing then the republicans would attack him for standing by and letting civilians get killed and not helping them fight for democracy. They were on him for a few days before we started the bombing, it would have only gotten worse. If he bombs (as we have) then some from the left attack him for getting us into another war when we already have two going and some from the right attack him for spending money on this attack that we don't have.

He couldn't win no matter what he did.

In the end it is at least somewhat about protecting civilians in hopes that they will overthrow the leadership, take power and be our friends. So it is helping them out with a hope of it one day paying a dividend.

To make it even simpler...the U.S. acts in...whatever...the current "inner circle of power" "perceives" to be in the national interest be it economic...geo politcal...geo positioning etc. The bottom line is "perceived" national interest. Lives saved or lives taken are of little import to the "perceived" better good...which is the national interest

kane · 03-29-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

To make it even simpler...the U.S. acts in...whatever...the current "inner circle of power" "perceives" to be in the national interest be it economic...geo politcal...geo positioning etc. The bottom line is "perceived" national interest. Lives saved or lives taken are of little import to the "perceived" better good...which is the national interest

Good point. In the end we help those who we feel might benefit us in the future. If it were just about protecting innocents we would be in Somalia, Ethiopia and The Congo just to name a few.

Seth Manson · 03-29-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Good point. In the end we help those who we feel might benefit us in the future. If it were just about protecting innocents we would be in Somalia, Ethiopia and The Congo just to name a few.

Why does everyone here fucking forget that we went to Somalia? The very next year, we went to Haiti. To protect the civilians.

kane · 03-29-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Manson

Why does everyone here fucking forget that we went to Somalia? The very next year, we went to Haiti. To protect the civilians.

You're right we did go there and then we left and things are just as shitty in Somalia today as they were when we were there before.

I understand we can't be the world police. We can't go everywhere there is injustice and help anyone and everyone who needs help. We just don't have the means to do that. But it kind of annoys me that we make a big deal of helping some people who just might down the road be able to provide us with something we want while ignoring others.

NetHorse · 03-29-2011, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzling

this is about Obama installing an Al-Qaeda led regime in Libya.

Let me ask you this, do you smoke crack?

NetHorse · 03-29-2011, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Essentially Obama is in a position he can't win.

That's been the position for every president, there will always be critics. Maybe if Obama didn't open his fat mouth he wouldn't be getting so much criticism for being a hypocrite.

Here is some stuff he previously said, verbatim.

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, before Obama was elected, he said;

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

While Obama knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

It's funny watching all the hypocrites lay in their own filth.

kane · 03-29-2011, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

That's been the position for every president, there will always be critics. Maybe if Obama didn't open his fat mouth he wouldn't be getting so much criticism for being a hypocrite.

Here is some stuff he previously said, verbatim.

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, before Obama was elected, he said;

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

While Obama knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

It's funny watching all the hypocrites lay in their own filth.

you make a good point and like you say, every president is pretty much in that position. When Bush decided to invade Iraq the left tore him apart. Had he backed down after all the posturing and not invaded the right would have tore him apart because they would have thought he projected weakness.

HomerSimpson · 03-29-2011, 02:51 AM

having a war in desert is not intersting, so military entered cities...
this is why civilians are getting killed...

not because Gaddafi wants to kill it's own people...

dazzling · 03-29-2011, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

Let me ask you this, do you smoke crack?

AFA’s Bryan Fischer: “Al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya. So this no-fly zone is in fact helping the Muslims who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. But helping our sworn enemies, especially if they are Muslims, does not seem to be a bother to Obama.” [03/22/11]

Pam Geller, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment: “And now [President Obama] is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved.” [03/21/11]

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich asked “Does President Obama acknowledge the danger of Al Qaeda allies among the anti-Qaddafi forces and pledge to work for a moderate replacement government without extremist factions?” [03/28/11]

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): “I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?” [03/24/11]

According to a report from Al Arabiya, Khaled Khaim confessed to E.U. ambassadors in Tripoli that the terrorist group al-Qaead has set up an “Islamic emirate” in Derna, a city in eastern Libya. The camp, he claims, is headed by Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, a former prisoner once held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“They have an FM radio station and have begun to impose the burqa” (head-to-toe covering for women) and have “executed people who refuse to cooperate with them,” Khaim claimed.
Khaim also said Hasadi has a lieutenant, “also a member of al-Qaeda and named Kheirallah Baraassi” in al-Baida....http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...itmo-detainee/

DWB · 03-29-2011, 05:51 AM

I don't believe Qadaffi is doing anything the USA or any other country wouldn't do if faced with the same situation.

Look at how the US gov handed Waco. Killed everyone, burned that shit to the ground.

If the day ever comes when US militia rises up with arms for some crazy reason, they will be gunned the fuck down by all means necessary, as will any non violent civilian caught in their path.

Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power.

pornguy · 03-29-2011, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

I don't believe Qadaffi is doing anything the USA or any other country wouldn't do if faced with the same situation.

Look at how the US gov handed Waco. Killed everyone, burned that shit to the ground.

If the day ever comes when US militia rises up with arms for some crazy reason, they will be gunned the fuck down by all means necessary, as will any non violent civilian caught in their path.

Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power.

I dont think the gunning down will be all that easy but I do agree that those in power will do anything to stay in power.

u-Bob · 03-29-2011, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power.

There we have it...

DWB · 03-29-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

I dont think the gunning down will be all that easy but I do agree that those in power will do anything to stay in power.

Lets use a hypothetical situation. Lets say the protesters in Wisconsin were all armed and physically trying to take control of their state. What do you think would happen after they refused orders to lay down their weapons? Then when do you think would happen if some of them foolishly opened fire on whoever was trying to stop them?

I could be totally wrong, but I believe they would be gassed, shot, burned, and even bombed if necessary. Whatever it takes to restore order.

Do you disagree?

theking · 03-29-2011, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

If the day ever comes when US militia rises up with arms for some crazy reason, they will be gunned the fuck down by all means necessary, as will any non violent civilian caught in their path.

Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power.

In the U.S...of course any armed revolt would be put down by what ever means necessary and what ever non violent civilians are caught in the cross hairs...would be considered as acceptable collateral damage.

In the U.S. there is not any need for an armed revolution. There is a legal revolution every 2-4-6 years with multiple political parties to vote for as well as the ability to create new political parties. The power of the vote is the revolution in the U.S.

DWB · 03-29-2011, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

In the U.S...of course any armed revolt would be put down by what ever means necessary and what ever non violent civilians are caught in the cross hairs...would be considered as acceptable collateral damage.

And would it then be acceptable for say... China, to fly in and attack US soldiers who were fighting the armed protesters? Of course, they would not be called rebels or freedom fighters, they would be called "home grown terrorists" and treated as such.

Rochard · 03-29-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

To make it even simpler...the U.S. acts in...whatever...the current "inner circle of power" "perceives" to be in the national interest be it economic...geo politcal...geo positioning etc. The bottom line is "perceived" national interest. Lives saved or lives taken are of little import to the "perceived" better good...which is the national interest

Yeah because we've only been doing that since the beginning of time...

theking · 03-29-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

And would it then be acceptable for say... China, to fly in and attack US soldiers who were fighting the armed protesters? Of course, they would not be called rebels or freedom fighters, they would be called "home grown terrorists" and treated as such.

Of course it would not be acceptable...and there of course is not a country or any number of combined countries on the earth that has the ability to do that...and of course those that joined an armed revolt would not in fact not be freedom fighters...because as I stated in the U.S. one is free to legally revolt...via the power of the vote...every 2-4-6 years.

seeandsee · 03-29-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Manson

They have the right to defend themselves at all times.

But as long as they keep attacking the civilians, they will be attacked by NATO. They are welcome to defend themselves. Its more fun if they try to defend themselves.

Civilians with guns?!? What did i miss

sperbonzo · 03-29-2011, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

And would it then be acceptable for say... China, to fly in and attack US soldiers who were fighting the armed protesters? Of course, they would not be called rebels or freedom fighters, they would be called "home grown terrorists" and treated as such.

Ding! Ding!

.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-29-2011, 06:43 AM

Qaddafi's troops halt rebel advance

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...454514581.html

Qaddafi's troops are lingering on and holding positions ... Qaddafi's Air Force is neutered.

Qaddafi has made this his final stand. Guess he hasn't read the tale of "Custer's last stand."

However, these "rebels" lack clarity in political position as well as cohesive military strategy. Best hopes lie in Libyan government military defection to the rebel's side. So, keep bombing Qaddafi to a shit heap and the military will change sides most likely. The alternative is a massive government slaughter ...

That is preferable? Yea! Qaddafi wins and there are thousands slaughtered?

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
— Elie Wiesel (The Night Trilogy: Night, Dawn, The Accident)

just a punk · 03-29-2011, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzling

If this was really about protecting civilains why does NATO

Don't be naive. It's all about oil.

dazzling · 03-29-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Don't be naive. It's all about oil.

Yes oil is a major part of this, but actually Libya gas a natural resource that is even worth more then their oil, its WATER.....

Few in the West may know that Libya - along with Egypt - sits over the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer; that is, an ocean of extremely valuable fresh water. So yes, this "now you see it, now you don't" war is a crucial water war. Control of the aquifer is priceless - as in "rescuing" valuable natural resources from the "savages".

This Water Pipelineistan - buried underground deep in the desert along 4,000 km - is the Great Man-Made River Project (GMMRP), which Gaddafi built for $25 billion without borrowing a single cent from the IMF or the World Bank (what a bad example for the developing world). The GMMRP supplies Tripoli, Benghazi and the whole Libyan coastline. The amount of water is estimated by scientists to be the equivalent to 200 years of water flowing down the Nile.

Compare this to the so-called three sisters - Veolia (formerly Vivendi), Suez Ondeo (formerly Generale des Eaux) and Saur - the French companies that control over 40% of the global water market. All eyes must imperatively focus on whether these pipelines are bombed. An extremely possible scenario is that if they are, juicy "reconstruction" contracts will benefit France. That will be the final step to privatize all this - for the moment free - water. From shock doctrine to water doctrine.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-29-2011, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Don't be naive. It's all about oil.

So? You want to be cynical?

Try the cynicism of the western powers non-support of the aspiration of those dying in the Gulf (Bahrain) protesting the Despotic Royal Families control over their lives and their hording of the wealth of their extortive oil sale policies. And they support a lot of the non OPEC countries price of oil. So de facto ? you are supporting extortive oil prices (or being supported by them).

Why do you think there is so much organized opposition to the development of energy sources that are not dependent on OPEC oil?

Replace petroleum based energy ? then such actions as we have today in Libya either will not happen or will happen without the mantra of "it's all about oil."

dazzling · 03-29-2011, 07:20 AM

Actually, there is a very interesting article about this water development in Libya by Gaddafi, in all fairness he really did an amazing job of developing this and turning the whole economy of the country around....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm

Barry-xlovecam · 03-29-2011, 07:53 AM

Adolf Hitler was instrumental in the development of the Volkswagen.

.

directfiesta · 03-29-2011, 08:29 AM

Americans never learn ....

Rice: U.S. has not ruled out arming Libyan rebels

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S3GU20110329

Funny how the US complained about Iran arming the " rebels " in Iraq ....

Rochard · 03-29-2011, 08:35 AM

The really funny thing is... The difference between a rebel and a terrorist is just a matter of which side you are on.

If ten thousand people in California rose up and over threw local law enforcement, they would be considered criminals.

_Richard_ · 03-29-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Americans never learn ....

Rice: U.S. has not ruled out arming Libyan rebels

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S3GU20110329

Funny how the US complained about Iran arming the " rebels " in Iraq ....

thought they were passing leadership?

Barry-xlovecam · 03-29-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The really funny thing is... The difference between a rebel and a terrorist is just a matter of which side you are on.

If ten thousand people in California rose up and over threw local law enforcement, they would be considered criminals.

Well, Qaddafi couldn't send in troops or air support so your point is that the US Government would declare martial law and send in troops as Lincoln did in the American Civil War?

OK, Qaddafi is right — KILL ALL THE REBELS AND THEIR FAMILIES!!!

That is what you want to do?
Give Qaddafi that right?
Qaddafi has previously made his position clear.
Justify his actions.
There is hypocrisy in the world — that has been going on for 10,000+ years ...

CDSmith · 03-29-2011, 10:33 AM

With all my intel that is so far beyond what Obama has I suppose I won't sit here and armchair quarterback the whole thing. You guys with your amazing intel are doing just fine. :D

It's a catch 22 no matter how it's dissected. US does nothing, they're criticized. They do something in name of helping civilians, they're criticized. Personally I don't much like catch 22 situations, so I'm often liable to say "fuck you" to the critics.

Rochard · 03-29-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Well, Qaddafi couldn't send in troops or air support so your point is that the US Government would declare martial law and send in troops as Lincoln did in the American Civil War?

OK, Qaddafi is right ? KILL ALL THE REBELS AND THEIR FAMILIES!!!

That is what you want to do?
Give Qaddafi that right?
Qaddafi has previously made his position clear.
Justify his actions.
There is hypocrisy in the world ? that has been going on for 10,000+ years ...

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just saying that if this was to happen in the US and we had civilians arming themselves, taking over entire states by force.... The White House wouldn't be calling them "rebels".

Barry-xlovecam · 03-29-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just saying that if this was to happen in the US and we had civilians arming themselves, taking over entire states by force.... The White House wouldn't be calling them "rebels".

Of course, they would and we were called criminals. And whose side I am on would depend on the specifics.

I fought with the anti-war movement during the latter Nixon years ? in the end we won. The only good thing President Carter did was pardon me for the "crime" of supporting my peers that didn't want to be part of the "meat-grinder" known as the Vietnam War.

There were millions of us and one day at my side 60,000 of us took the day in the streets. This was repeated all around the nation. Nixon was responsible for the dead at Kent State in Ohio. US Soldiers (National Guard actually)

And in the end, even our detractors admitted their errors and we brought in a new government. Fortunately, without force of arms. Nixon resigned in disgrace but some 20,000 of my generation died for nothing in the end.

I think we can only honor our dead by taking a position, in alliance with those that fight the dictator and the corrupt. I wish we had had some real help, we did not but won our victory and redemption by taking to the streets.

Quote:

[T]he Kent State shootings?also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre[2][3][4]?occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]

There was a significant national response to the shootings: hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of four million[8] students, and the event further affected the public opinion?at an already socially contentious time?over the role of the United States in the Vietnam War.[9] ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

So, the scenario that you have laid out has occurred in the USA in recent history. The result was the end of Nixon by both non-violent and other means.

CDSmith · 03-29-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just saying that if this was to happen in the US and we had civilians arming themselves, taking over entire states by force.... The White House wouldn't be calling them "rebels".

If Gadhafi were ever elected president this argument would have more merit. I'd not only support such US rebels and refer to them as such, I would also send them boxes of ammo.

directfiesta · 03-29-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If Gadhafi were ever elected president this argument would have more merit. I'd not only support such US rebels and refer to them as such, I would also send them boxes of ammo.

Send some to to Yemen, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, Angola etc ....

Kiopa_Matt · 03-29-2011, 04:10 PM

Does it matter? The Libyan military pissed off NATO and the UN. End game for them now.

As for what's right, and what not... I have no idea, and neither does anyone else on GFY, because we probably have about a whopping 1.5% of the facts.

03-28-2011, 08:27 PM	#1
PornoMonster Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2,257	Libyan Military have the right to defend itself? At what point does the Libyan Military have the right to defend itself? Obama said he wasn?t targeting Gadhafi, well I mean he said he isn?t after he said he was. When does this turn from ?protecting? innocent civilians, to backing a regime change? Are we protecting the Protesters or the Rebels? http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

03-28-2011, 09:14 PM	#2
Seth Manson Please dont fuck animals Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Henderson, NV Posts: 3,988	They have the right to defend themselves at all times. But as long as they keep attacking the civilians, they will be attacked by NATO. They are welcome to defend themselves. Its more fun if they try to defend themselves. __________________

03-28-2011, 09:53 PM	#3
dazzling Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 579	If this was really about protecting civilains why does NATO not also bomb the Al-Qaeda supported rebels? The rebels are killing people, the rebels are bombing people, the rebels are killing civilians...so why is it ok for the rebels to kill people? FACT...this has nothing to do with protecting civilians, this is about Obama installing an Al-Qaeda led regime in Libya. __________________ DuckDuckGo Search Engine We Dont Track You Last edited by dazzling; 03-28-2011 at 09:54 PM..

03-28-2011, 10:52 PM	#6
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,230	Just remember who pushed for the no fly zone! It was not The United States Of America! The USA is however part of NATO, and not backing NATO would not make much sense when NATO has been backing the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade! Turning NATO's request down now would almost be a traitorous act. So just remember who we had to follow to fulfill our obligation to NATO. They sure fucking remember us when it comes to Iraq. __________________ Make Money with Porn

03-29-2011, 02:51 AM	#14
HomerSimpson Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Springfield Posts: 13,826	having a war in desert is not intersting, so military entered cities... this is why civilians are getting killed... not because Gaddafi wants to kill it's own people... __________________ Make a bank with Chaturbate - the best selling webcam program Ads that can't be block with AdBlockers !!! /// Best paying popup program (Bitcoin payouts) !!! PHP, MySql, Smarty, CodeIgniter, Laravel, WordPress, NATS... fixing stuff, server migrations & optimizations... My ICQ: 27429884 \| Email:

03-28-2011, 10:13 PM	#4
PornoMonster Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2,257	Hold a Sign = Civilians Hold a gun = Rebel I think several are playing both rolls, depending on if the tanks or cameras are coming. We all know the true answer, it was never about the civilians. If you believe it is, I have a bridge to sell you.

03-29-2011, 05:51 AM	#16
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	I don't believe Qadaffi is doing anything the USA or any other country wouldn't do if faced with the same situation. Look at how the US gov handed Waco. Killed everyone, burned that shit to the ground. If the day ever comes when US militia rises up with arms for some crazy reason, they will be gunned the fuck down by all means necessary, as will any non violent civilian caught in their path. Those in power will do anything and everything to remain in power.

03-29-2011, 06:43 AM	#26
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Qaddafi's troops halt rebel advance http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...454514581.html Qaddafi's troops are lingering on and holding positions ... Qaddafi's Air Force is neutered. Qaddafi has made this his final stand. Guess he hasn't read the tale of "Custer's last stand." However, these "rebels" lack clarity in political position as well as cohesive military strategy. Best hopes lie in Libyan government military defection to the rebel's side. So, keep bombing Qaddafi to a shit heap and the military will change sides most likely. The alternative is a massive government slaughter ... That is preferable? Yea! Qaddafi wins and there are thousands slaughtered? "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." — Elie Wiesel (The Night Trilogy: Night, Dawn, The Accident) Last edited by Barry-xlovecam; 03-29-2011 at 06:44 AM..

03-29-2011, 07:20 AM	#30
dazzling Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 579	Actually, there is a very interesting article about this water development in Libya by Gaddafi, in all fairness he really did an amazing job of developing this and turning the whole economy of the country around....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm __________________ DuckDuckGo Search Engine We Dont Track You

03-29-2011, 07:53 AM	#31
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Adolf Hitler was instrumental in the development of the Volkswagen. .

03-29-2011, 08:29 AM	#32
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Punta Cana, DR Posts: 29,585	Americans never learn .... Rice: U.S. has not ruled out arming Libyan rebels http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S3GU20110329 Funny how the US complained about Iran arming the " rebels " in Iraq .... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

03-29-2011, 08:35 AM	#33
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 72,963	The really funny thing is... The difference between a rebel and a terrorist is just a matter of which side you are on. If ten thousand people in California rose up and over threw local law enforcement, they would be considered criminals. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

03-29-2011, 10:33 AM	#36
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	With all my intel that is so far beyond what Obama has I suppose I won't sit here and armchair quarterback the whole thing. You guys with your amazing intel are doing just fine. :D It's a catch 22 no matter how it's dissected. US does nothing, they're criticized. They do something in name of helping civilians, they're criticized. Personally I don't much like catch 22 situations, so I'm often liable to say "fuck you" to the critics. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-29-2011, 04:10 PM	#41
Kiopa_Matt Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,448	Does it matter? The Libyan military pissed off NATO and the UN. End game for them now. As for what's right, and what not... I have no idea, and neither does anyone else on GFY, because we probably have about a whopping 1.5% of the facts. __________________ xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!