RE: And so it begins. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

eihwaz -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 8:36:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa
I wonder if there will ever be a time, when we aren't at odds with someone?  

Doubtful.  I'm even at odds with myself on occasion. [:D]



Musicmystery -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 8:41:39 PM)

Well, one is an odd number.

And being just one, no wonder you just can't live with yourself...

[:D]



kdsub -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 8:42:49 PM)

HERE is what we get...we will never learn.

Butch



Termyn8or -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 9:44:39 PM)

"I watched western movies, you take out the leader, the troops all give up."

A sound basis on which to run onw's life ?

T^T



slvemike4u -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 10:40:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

HERE is what we get...we will never learn.

Butch
So never take any action unless you are assured everyone will applaud.I'm afraid that path leads to complete paralysis.The African Union owes it's genesis to Qaddafi...what did you expect from them?



FatDomDaddy -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 11:13:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Did a foreign nation interfere with the American Civil War ?



Yes.

France also invaded and occupied Mexico.



slvemike4u -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 11:25:25 PM)

Hey Fatty,where have you been?



SexyBossyBBW -> RE: And so it begins. (3/19/2011 11:30:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Hey Fatty,where have you been?

LOL, I saw this flash at the top of the screen, and thought, not another fat thread! Laughed when I saw it was from you; kind of like some Jamaicans call a girl fatty (iin my best Jamaican accent[:D]), because they like it, and think she would be turned on by being called "fatty." M



Termyn8or -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 1:18:17 AM)

Reacquisition of the north never entered their minds ?

T^T



Musicmystery -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 7:48:43 AM)

Another one who reads what was never there in a post instead of what was.



kdsub -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 9:57:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So never take any action unless you are assured everyone will applaud.I'm afraid that path leads to complete paralysis.The African Union owes it's genesis to Qaddafi...what did you expect from them?



Our action should be to encourage Africans to solve their own problems. I never thought I would say it but China and Russia have a better policy then we do when it comes to the middle east.

Just because the Arab League is encouraging us does not mean the people of that part of the world agree. I'll bet in the end they will see attacking Libya as another attack on Islam. They see through the ruse of defending civilians in Libya while supporting the killing of civilians in Bahrain. That may not be true but will be perceived that way.

Now... do we just protect civilians or do we also protect opposition forces? Don't you agree the only way to end this is to kill or capture Qaddafi? How will we be perceived providing close air support for the opposition? Can we still say we are only interested in protecting civilians.. yea right.

By the way who the hell is the opposition? Do we know them and their political bent...are we just providing a way for one oppressive group to replace another? Are we going to demand another nation governed in our image…are we back to nation building?

I understand you desire to help the people of Libya…BUT… only they and others in the area can help themselves and have a lasting solution.

Butch



truckinslave -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 10:00:40 AM)

quote:

Did a foreign nation interfere with the American Civil War ?


Yes.



Anaxagoras -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 12:46:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Just because the Arab League is encouraging us does not mean the people of that part of the world agree. I'll bet in the end they will see attacking Libya as another attack on Islam. They see through the ruse of defending civilians in Libya while supporting the killing of civilians in Bahrain. That may not be true but will be perceived that way.

Now... do we just protect civilians or do we also protect opposition forces? Don't you agree the only way to end this is to kill or capture Qaddafi? How will we be perceived providing close air support for the opposition? Can we still say we are only interested in protecting civilians.. yea right.

News just in - it does seem that even the Arab League's support is questionable at this stage because while it is largely a criticism of strategy, the intent seems a bit dubious because it is inevitable that enforcing a no-fly zone would result in some significant civilian casulties. In the longer term this large scale involvement may further stir up Islamicist tensions, especially as there is a good chance it will be prolonged. I personally feel the coalition forces should have stayed away. From Sky News – note for the sake of transparency to all er…. "passionate" leftists: this is the British Murdock affiliate of the dreaded Fox News!

Arab League has criticised the military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

The Arab League chief said that Arabs did not want military strikes by Western powers that hit civilians when the League called for a no-fly zone over Libya.

Reuters said Secretary-General Amr Moussa was calling for an emergency league meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya under UN resolution 1973.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Mr Moussa told Egypt's official state news agency.

The volte-face by the Arab League raises uncertainty about the unity of Western and Muslim leaders and highlights varying interpretations of tactics and strategy.

Only Qatar has openly supported the Western-led campaign and their planes are now moving into position near Libya.

Sky sources confirm the United Arab Emirates is offering help but does not seek to publicise it.

The Arab League had suffered wide criticism for not being more vocal in support of the action it had appealed for.

(…)

Former head of the army General Lord Richard Dannatt told Sky News that more regional states should be involved.

Lord Dannatt said: "Critically, what we need to see quite soon, is Arab and Muslim nations stepping up to the plate and also visibly taking part in missions - it is their part of the world, after all."

Persian power Iran warned Libyans not to trust Western powers launching air strikes, saying their aim was to gain neo-colonial control over the oil-rich nation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110320/twl-arab-league-splits-from-west-over-li-3fd0ae9.html



Moonhead -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 1:40:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Did a foreign nation interfere with the American Civil War ?


Yes. England, supporting the South (for economic reasons--textiles).

Actually, we didn't.
The disruption of the cotton trade did wreak havoc oop north, but Prince Piercing talked Vicky out of adopting any military (or otherwise) support of the confederacy. About all that happened was she wrote Lincoln a snotty letter about the British trade ship that was seized by his navy.



slvemike4u -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 1:51:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Did a foreign nation interfere with the American Civil War ?


Yes. England, supporting the South (for economic reasons--textiles).

Actually, we didn't.
The disruption of the cotton trade did wreak havoc oop north, but Prince Piercing talked Vicky out of adopting any military (or otherwise) support of the confederacy. About all that happened was she wrote Lincoln a snotty letter about the British trade ship that was seized by his navy.
While there was no direct intervention from Britain(or France for that matter)Southern blockade runners were more than welcome in British ports....and many a ship left those ports with munitions destined for the Confederacy.Don't get me wrong,simply a case of realpolitik vis a vis  Britains ....not only a desire to see the emerging United States fractured but the disruption of the cotton trade was,as you said,disruptive to British commerce.
The sticking point of course was Britain's own stance on slavery...that much more than any fear(they at the time had no need of fear of a US in the middle of a Civil War)of military ramifications stayed their hand.....whether or not that would have held if Lee had had any success at all with his two attempts at taking the war North.The South's lack of success when in Maryland and Pennsylvania killed any hope of foreign intervention.



Politesub53 -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 2:05:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Did a foreign nation interfere with the American Civil War ?


Yes. England, supporting the South (for economic reasons--textiles).

Actually, we didn't.
The disruption of the cotton trade did wreak havoc oop north, but Prince Piercing talked Vicky out of adopting any military (or otherwise) support of the confederacy. About all that happened was she wrote Lincoln a snotty letter about the British trade ship that was seized by his navy.


While I agree we did trade with the south, textiles wasnt a concern for the UK. Our main trade at that time was corn from the north, which supplied 40% of Britains wheat needs at that time. Britain never formally recognised the south in any way shape or form, although, we were happy to trade arms. In this case a couple of warships.



Moonhead -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 2:18:54 PM)

Corn was probably another factor in our staying on the fence, but the cotton trade was pretty important to our then economy. There were plenty of towns in the North and Scotland where the main local employers were cotton mills, after all.

I'm not sure about the slavery thing, though. Hadn't Wilberforce and the Quakers knocked that one on the head by the time the civil war broke out? (Which isn't to say that slaves were no longer being shipped from Liverpool and Bristol to the southern states, of course, but it had become frowned upon by then...)



slvemike4u -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 4:52:23 PM)

My point exactly Moon.....Great Britain was out of the slavery business by than and was hesitant to come down on the side of the slave holding south.....no matter how appealing a fractured United States on the North American continent looked.



Politesub53 -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 5:48:30 PM)

Moon, Britain needed corn from the north more than it needed cotton from the south. We had stores of one but not the other.

Yes, Wilberforce had ended the UK international slave trade some 50 years earlier in 1807. As had the U.S ( African slave trading ) Internal US slave trading continued though. 

Slavery within the UK 1770s from memory. The UK finally abolished slavery in the British Empire 1833



Aneirin -> RE: And so it begins. (3/20/2011 6:26:16 PM)

I agree here, for I believe what is happening in libya is set to escalate, for I do not believe this issue has been well thought through, sure the Western interest in the country is oil, bearing in mind various oil companies have interests in the country they want protected, it is this I believe the coalition forces are interested in more than a tyrant killing his people scenario. Which if the latter rather than the former was to be believed one might question why have they not been so forthright before with non oil bearing countries that have experienced similar problem in the recent past and in the present. Therefore I believe this so called humanitarian mission is a ruse and I will only stop believing that if the UN forces do similar to other oppressive regimes in other countries that do not possess oil.

A no fly zone was what the Arab league pressed the UN to create, how could that be achieved, well, simply when libyan aircraft were airborne, scramble UN aircraft and make their prescence felt, any bombs dropped would result in the pilots annihilation, simple as that, a warning is enough, pilots of aggressive forces want to live to, threat of death might have been enough for them to have not found any targets to bomb. But what does the UN forces do, but go overboard, x missiles launched cruise I belive at that which are notoriously innacurate and here we have civilian deaths as reported. As reported civilian deaths, which is quite rightly what the Arab league did not want, and I agree with them, for I believe the UN forces, consisting of the USA, the lap dog Britain and the French supposedly have quite plainly done their own thing.

Now I believe if the Western nations were going to make any inroads into letting the Arabs believe the West was not all about war, they would have done this job with extreme caution, but no, they can't do that, for it is clear the coalition forces have waded in with the wrong message.

Now all I see as half expected is the Arab world growing less tolerant of the Western world, and there licensing the nut jobs to continue attacking the west, that means quite possibly civilian deaths as a means to get at the war mongering government, which means more authorital control for us in our best interest



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125