125 replies to this topic

[nutzbuster]

I can't help but imagine a scenario similar to this:..."Mr. President...you are not being perceived well lately. You seem distracted with basketball, parties and golf and what not. Hell...you loaded up your plane with family members and powerful CEO's of corporations for a trip/vacation to Brazil while the whole world implodes around you. Your moronic PR folks decided that in the midst of all this you would appear in a clip that shows your apparent disregard by picking March madness brackets instead of smarter shots of say, you at 2 AM with your sleeves rolled up looking worried while gazing out the window of the Oval office with a phone at your ear. So how bout this...we orchestrate you having a big pair of balls and get Hillary to throw together a multi national coalition action against the madman no one wants. It's a perfect situation to take advantage of sir, sort of like Clinton when he bombed the milk factories during the Lewinsky fiasco. And it is a fight that most will look favorably upon, like the UK, France, Spain, but not Brazil (but that's ok). You will come out talking strong, and will reassure everyone that we had no choice, that Quaddafy had been defiant for too long, that we (you) are finally taking charge and leading. This is not nation building or meddling. We hated when Bush did it and we swore we would in no way do it either. We are only in it because it's the right thing to do, that it is to save lives of the little people, to instill democracy further, etc etc. And also that we are ONLY helping out from the back seat, a support role, donating only expertise and "unique assets". This will NOT be our fight alone...the UN will agree to this move. Never mind that fact that less than 24 hours after the bombing starts we will claim to fully be in charge of the command and operation of the whole mess.But not to worry sir...this should be an easy, relatively quick fight that will not involve one boot on the ground to finish. We will look very strong and you will be a hero and a bad ass. Your approval ratings will soar. Not unlike merely flicking a bee off your forearm sir. Until the madman calls your bluff and unleashes some sort of holy hell that we have not thought of. But, I mean...what could possibly go wrong, all wars go exactly as planned, yes?"...Praying for success and for the safety of the troops obviously but if this goes badly ...... oh boy.....

[CaneBrain]

nutzbuster, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 1:31 AM, said:

I can't help but imagine a scenario similar to this:..."Mr. President...you are not being perceived well lately. You seem distracted with basketball, parties and golf and what not. Hell...you loaded up your plane with family members and powerful CEO's of corporations for a trip/vacation to Brazil while the whole world implodes around you. Your moronic PR folks decided that in the midst of all this you would appear in a clip that shows your apparent disregard by picking March madness brackets instead of smarter shots of say, you at 2 AM with your sleeves rolled up looking worried while gazing out the window of the Oval office with a phone at your ear. So how bout this...we orchestrate you having a big pair of balls and get Hillary to throw together a multi national coalition action against the madman no one wants. It's a perfect situation to take advantage of sir, sort of like Clinton when he bombed the milk factories during the Lewinsky fiasco. And it is a fight that most will look favorably upon, like the UK, France, Spain, but not Brazil (but that's ok). You will come out talking strong, and will reassure everyone that we had no choice, that Quaddafy had been defiant for too long, that we (you) are finally taking charge and leading. This is not nation building or meddling. We hated when Bush did it and we swore we would in no way do it either. We are only in it because it's the right thing to do, that it is to save lives of the little people, to instill democracy further, etc etc. And also that we are ONLY helping out from the back seat, a support role, donating only expertise and "unique assets". This will NOT be our fight alone...the UN will agree to this move. Never mind that fact that less than 24 hours after the bombing starts we will claim to fully be in charge of the command and operation of the whole mess.But not to worry sir...this should be an easy, relatively quick fight that will not involve one boot on the ground to finish. We will look very strong and you will be a hero and a bad ass. Your approval ratings will soar. Not unlike merely flicking a bee off your forearm sir. Until the madman calls your bluff and unleashes some sort of holy hell that we have not thought of. But, I mean...what could possibly go wrong, all wars go exactly as planned, yes?"...Praying for success and for the safety of the troops obviously but if this goes badly ...... oh boy.....

lol I am sure this is how Glenn Beck is reporting it anyway.

[nutzbuster]

[FCP Bob]

http://ca.news.yahoo...043754-780.htmlThere have also been some airstrikes against ground forces as well such as tanks attacking the rebels.

[AmScray]

Why are we involving ourselves in this again?Haven't we learned out lesson yet, that people like Gaddafi and Hussien (Saddam, not Barack) are the perfect leaders for these types of places? If I were running Libya or Iraq, I'd certainly treat those apes much worse than those two ever did. Gadaffi has been behaving himself lately- even got straight on his knees and started sucking our balls after 9/11, when he feared we were going to use that as a pretext to come in and remove him from this earth. Why now? Why do we give a shit about that place or those useless people?The only reason I would accept this campaign is if we go in and remove all the good antiquities from early human history for display in our own museums. Those are relevant to us because they show how we used to live, back when we were still down in the "North African" range on the evolutionary scale.

[colonel Feathers]

AmScray, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 1:39 PM, said:

Why are we involving ourselves in this again?Haven't we learned out lesson yet, that people like Gaddafi and Hussien (Saddam, not Barack) are the perfect leaders for these types of places? If I were running Libya or Iraq, I'd certainly treat those apes much worse than those two ever did. Gadaffi has been behaving himself lately- even got straight on his knees and started sucking our balls after 9/11, when he feared we were going to use that as a pretext to come in and remove him from this earth. Why now? Why do we give a shit about that place or those useless people?The only reason I would accept this campaign is if we go in and remove all the good antiquities from early human history for display in our own museums. Those are relevant to us because they show how we used to live, back when we were still down in the "North African" range on the evolutionary scale.

Awesome, freaking awesome>There are just some breeds that require brutality to keep them in line.

[All_In]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 8:00 PM, said:

if any of this was true, you might have a good argument that the UN has let the Palestinians down. Of course, it's all made-up nonsense propaganda from a group that deliberately hides weapons and terrorists near hospitals, schools, and civilians. Too bad.

*sigh* another lemming being played by his government and media. so sad.

[CaneBrain]

All_In, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 10:04 PM, said:

*sigh* another lemming being played by his government and media. so sad.

my thoughts exactly about you. you read minds?

[All_In]

nutzbuster, on Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 10:31 PM, said:

I can't help but imagine a scenario similar to this:..."Mr. President...you are not being perceived well lately....Until the madman calls your bluff and unleashes some sort of holy hell that we have not thought of. But, I mean...what could possibly go wrong, all wars go exactly as planned, yes?"...Praying for success and for the safety of the troops obviously but if this goes badly ...... oh boy.....

maybe pretty close...libya pledged to destroy all their chem and bio weapons, and not start nuke development...seems like the countries that comply with the west are the ones targeted (iraq, afganistan (the taliban said they would hand over bin laden if the US provided proof of his involvement in 9/11, a reasonable request), and now libya)...n. korea and iran have been off-limits.

FCP Bob, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 5:23 AM, said:

http://ca.news.yahoo...043754-780.htmlThere have also been some airstrikes against ground forces as well such as tanks attacking the rebels.

this is even more of a crime...imposition of a no-fly zone is one thing, actively attacking libya's armed forces is a vastly different scenario...libya's government should be free to deal with this specific internal issue, even if a no-fly zone is implemented....this is different than in egypt, since in egypt the peaceful demonstrators did not go on the offensive and attack/take over major cities...now the west is actively helping rebels against a sovereign country's government by initiating military action against it. EVEN AFTER LIBYA'S GOV DECLARED A CEASEFIRE...it's all a military/media deception by the west..they talk about imposing a no-fly zone, then squeeze in lawyer-speak to 'legitimize' attacks that have nothing to do with imposing a no-fly zone."Civilians have been hit in the bombardment of sites in Libya, says Russia - which called for an immediate end to the strikes. A foreign ministry spokesman said: In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force. We believe a mandate given by the UN Security Council resolution-- a controversial move in itself - should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions, which only see measures necessary to protect the civilian population.He said that 48 civilians had been killed in the overnight shelling, with strikes hitting a medical facility, roads and bridges.Libyan state TV had also given the same casualty count earlier in the day."http://blogs.aljazee...blog-march-20-0

[All_In]

CaneBrain, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 7:09 PM, said:

my thoughts exactly about you. you read minds?

i know u r but what am i??really, just do some BASIC research...we have this great thing called the internet, u r now free to read many different media reports/articles rather than being shackled to what is available in the US (tv/radio).do u even realize how stupid u look with these accusations???

[Pot Odds RAC]

OK. I was one of the few Conservatives against going into Iraq when Bush 43 took us there. I'll admit, my objection was primarily political because I thought he was jeopardizing his reelection by exposing himself to the politics of the Left.But I sincerely doubted the imperative for action.Likewise, I do not see the strong imperative for action against Libya today. I fear the long term implications of not allowing a leader of a UN member to defend himself and shut down "rebels" within his own country.As anyone who has been paying attention knows, I am neither an Obama nor Gadaffi supporter. However, I am more anti Gdaffi than anti BHO. That is really saying something.I would still be delighted if the French could manage to allow a stray shot to take out Megrahi.One time.

[CaneBrain]

All_In, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 10:27 PM, said:

do u even realize how stupid u look with these accusations???

lol. somebody get this man a mirror.

[nutzbuster]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 8:32 PM, said:

OK. I was one of the few Conservatives against going into Iraq when Bush 43 took us there. I'll admit, my objection was primarily political because I thought he was jeopardizing his reelection by exposing himself to the politics of the Left.But I sincerely doubted the imperative for action.Likewise, I do not see the strong imperative for action against Libya today. I fear the long term implications of not allowing a leader of a UN member to defend himself and shut down "rebels" within his own country.As anyone who has been paying attention knows, I am neither an Obama nor Gadaffi supporter. However, I am more anti Gdaffi than anti BHO. That is really saying something.I would still be delighted if the French could manage to allow a stray shot to take out Megrahi.One time.

I am praying but have very little faith that this cluster fuck ends well or quickly. Deeply worried, especially if it eventually becomes mostly our fight (historically very likely) while the politicians tie the hands of the troops who need to do that fighting.sigh balls.

[Mercury69]

My take > It's a huge cluster**** of a mess that will get worse if extremist elements decide to pursue some extra-curricular blowing up of shit.France may have made themselves the biggest target in this. Fortunately, Sarkozy has some fairly big balls. Just ask all those hot women who have slept with the "jolie laid".

[LongLiveYorke]

I don't know, I'm not extraordinarily worried about this devolving into a complete clustercuss. This seems to be what the US military is really good at: using high tech weaponry to take out enemy weapons from afar with minimal danger to US troops. As long as this remains a mission to bomb Gaddafi's targets and limit his ability to fight back / maintain leadership over his country, I can see it ending somewhat cleanly.Gaddafi's position worsens by the day. The Arab league and the UN are both against him. His people are against him. He dismissed his cabinet yesterday, and we hit his compound with a few well targeted missiles. I don't see him lasting much longer, one way or another, and hopefully that'll be our queue to end our limited campaign there.

[All_In]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 7:32 PM, said:

...But I sincerely doubted the imperative for action.Likewise, I do not see the strong imperative for action against Libya today. I fear the long term implications of not allowing a leader of a UN member to defend himself and shut down "rebels" within his own country.

exactly, this is a 'slippery slope' akin to 'pre-emptive war'.

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, March 21st, 2011, 6:22 AM, said:

I don't know, I'm not extraordinarily worried about this devolving into a complete clustercuss. This seems to be what the US military is really good at: using high tech weaponry to take out enemy weapons from afar with minimal danger to US troops....

really good at?? what about the countless civilians killed by such strikes? these weapons are not as precise as most americans think...it is not a video game..they have an 'official' accuracy of around 30 ft...

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, March 21st, 2011, 6:22 AM, said:

Gaddafi's position worsens by the day. The Arab league and the UN are both against him. His people are against him. He dismissed his cabinet yesterday, and we hit his compound with a few well targeted missiles. I don't see him lasting much longer, one way or another, and hopefully that'll be our queue to end our limited campaign there.

the arab league has called for a halt to the attacks, since it goes beyond a simple no-fly zone. the african union (the continent that libya is part of) has called for the attacks to halt. russia, india and china have called for the attacks to halt, and condemed the attacks. many libyians support gaddafi, much more than the western media would have u believe.

[Balloon guy]

There is not much win here.If we kill/oust Quaddafi, the power vacuum can just as easily be filled with a worse government.They are not going to be turning into a democracy tomorrow.But to do nothing allows Russia to gain a foothold in the region, allowing them to expand their sphere of influence into Sudan, Tunisia, maybe even Egypt ( although Egypt is unlikely, being in the same neighborhood has many consequences)Either way the Libyan people are screwed. They can not have much hope for anything good in the coming years.But bombing from 30,000 feet and not being too concerned with the collateral damage is what democrat presidents do best.

[Balloon guy]

All_In, on Monday, March 21st, 2011, 8:11 AM, said:

.they have an 'official' accuracy of around 30 ft...

We can pick which window to put a bomb in, the US can blow stuff up like nobodies business.

Quote

the arab league has called for a halt to the attacks, since it goes beyond a simple no-fly zone. the african union (the continent that libya is part of) has called for the attacks to halt. russia, india and china have called for the attacks to halt, and condemed the attacks. many libyians support gaddafi, much more than the western media would have u believe.

Funny how little those countries are going to do for Libya after this is over. Except Russia, they would like to get in the middle of Libya and control their new government through their 'help'This is like the wolf saying he thinks the farmer needs to unlock the hen house.

[Pot Odds RAC]

All_In, on Monday, March 21st, 2011, 11:11 AM, said:

...really good at?? what about the countless civilians killed by such strikes? these weapons are not as precise as most americans think...it is not a video game..they have an 'official' accuracy of around 30 ft...

And they're not nearly as bad as some have tried to portray in the past. And please don't go back to that discredited "Study" that was released on the eve of the election where even the author admitted he was trying to influence the US Elections. The US (and our Allies) have gone to enormous lengths - to the point of jeopardizing the safety of our own troops - to minimize Civilian casualties. Certainly more effort than bombers who actively target civilians in non-military targets like markets. I would think you'd be more vocal about those terrible events.

[Mercury69]

Can't we all just sit down and have 'Amburgers and Woot Beer?