RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya.

RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (Full Version)

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

Message

Aneirin -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 5:45:02 PM)
Just wondering, what is Madaffi's nuclear capability, does he have nuclear weapons technology at his disposal or not ?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 6:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Just wondering, what is Madaffi's nuclear capability, does he have nuclear weapons technology at his disposal or not ? As far as I know, he has no nuclear weapon technology. Only chemical weapon tech.

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 6:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Here is the main point, Lib Dems went apoplectic over the mention that we were helping the Iraqi people. They dragged out and harped on every reason imaginable why it was "impeachable" or "war crimes" for the U.S. to do so, everyone from Barack Obama and Joe Biden on down to Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore. Agreed, but returning the favor seems counter-productive at best. It seems a good time to illustrate some valid points without using the rhetorical name-calling that turns everyone deaf to reason. But Biden has proven he is a lability and not an asset. Kucinich and Moore, well they have less credibility than the ultimate talking head Hannity. quote: Leftists screamed that it cost too much money, that we were interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, screeched about how our soldiers were "committing war crimes" and that we were there for the oil, they asked when we were going to liberate China and North Korea... their blathering went on and on. The left has nearly zero credibility when discussing overspending so that argument was invalid even prior to Iraq for their side. And what war haven't the way left screamed about soldiers killing people. That's their job, they serve to balance the scales. I also think they're going to have to come to grips that this is also an oil conflict, like it or not, deny it or not, reality is what it is. American interests in the Gulf and Middle East lie with black gold. quote: Turns out it was all purely political, the leftists were demeaning the United States and exploiting the Iraq war in order to undermine President Bush. I do believe I recently watched a talk show where the point that we are in desperate need of a statesman president as opposed to a politician president. I can't remember where I seen this, but it's point registered with me and I believe it should be considered by us all. quote: Now, certain morons here are trying to say that Im the hypocrite for pointing their hypocrisy out. You see the name calling is what gets everyone's panties all wadded up. Anyway, thanks for elaborating on your point.

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 6:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 flip flop flip flop The only thing you are concerned with is from which angle you can piss and moan about the President. Nothing else. You are a hypocrite, it's not a big secret. Uhmmm the left not only appeared too, but did the same to Bush. So I'd say there is plenty of hypocracy to go around.

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 6:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Bull, BP has already signed a lucrative deal to search for oil with Gadaffi, surely leaving it as the status quo would suit us better. Any new government in Libya could even tear up any deals done with Gadaffis regime. I believe they were smart enough to see that the status quo was on the outs in do course. I suspect the higher ups have nation building in mind. But I could be wrong, I am only looking outside the box at what seems to actually make sense..... to me. Why else wait for the bombing, I would imagine Momar has already killed off some of our more undesireables.

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 6:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam As far as I know, he has no nuclear weapon technology. Only chemical weapon tech. That is also the story I heard. Supposedly no bio's and when Sadam got his ass handed to him, Momar paniced and invited UN inspectors in promptly as he dismantled what he had. I hope our intel has this one right....

tweakabelle -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 8:39:56 PM)
Linked is the first claim of UK troops on the ground that I've seen. As the rebels captured an SAS unit on the ground in Libya not so long ago, it's hardly a surprise. A word of warning: the newspaper, "The Daily Mail" is a notoriously unreliable source of factual info so please take it with a pinch of salt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369763/Libya-Proof-winning-MoD-footage-airstrikes-Gaddafi-tanks.html

TreasureKY -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 8:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Its revisionist history because you are now claiming it as justification when prior to the invasion it was just an addendum to the search for WMD....the actual stated justification for invasion. But that didn't pan out....so now Bush is the "great liberator"? Ya know, Mike... I don't pretend to have all the answers. Personally speaking, I'd just as soon we not be in any foreign countries mucking around, but I do realize that there are many things that go on in this world that I'm not privy to. I do find it interesting that so many want to scream about how Bush "lied" about WMD... how he "tricked" everyone into going to war with Iraq. How it has been proven and admitted to... Seems to me that if Bush & Company knew that there were no WMD (which would be required if they indeed "lied" or intentionally mislead with fabricated evidence), then there must have been some other reason they felt it was important for us to do what we did. Again... I claim no special insight into what that reason might be, but being the eternal optimist that I am, I like to believe that no non-pathological human being would intentionally destroy lives and cost our country billions of dollars just for shits and grins. Yet when I bring up that there was a history with Saddam Hussein being a ruthless and oppressing dictator, and allude to the fact that maybe... just maybe that might have been an underlying reason to take steps to rid the world of a known evil (as well as plant plant a seed of hope for other oppressed people), then those very same naysayers cry out, "No, no... it couldn't possibly be for humanitarian reasons... it was all about WMD and lies!" [8\|]

slvemike4u -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 9:46:22 PM)
So in that version it is copacetic to mislead the citizens of the U.S.and give misleading testimony in front of the U.N....all the while the real underlying reason is as pure as the driven snow.An honest to goodness desire to "liberate" the oppressed peoples of Iraq. Interesting theory.....allow me to mull it over for a bit,and I will get back to you [8\|] Sorry for the delay....but I'm not buying that.

popeye1250 -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/26/2011 9:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Its revisionist history because you are now claiming it as justification when prior to the invasion it was just an addendum to the search for WMD....the actual stated justification for invasion. But that didn't pan out....so now Bush is the "great liberator"? Ya know, Mike... I don't pretend to have all the answers. Personally speaking, I'd just as soon we not be in any foreign countries mucking around, but I do realize that there are many things that go on in this world that I'm not privy to. I do find it interesting that so many want to scream about how Bush "lied" about WMD... how he "tricked" everyone into going to war with Iraq. How it has been proven and admitted to... Seems to me that if Bush & Company knew that there were no WMD (which would be required if they indeed "lied" or intentionally mislead with fabricated evidence), then there must have been some other reason they felt it was important for us to do what we did. Again... I claim no special insight into what that reason might be, but being the eternal optimist that I am, I like to believe that no non-pathological human being would intentionally destroy lives and cost our country billions of dollars just for shits and grins. Yet when I bring up that there was a history with Saddam Hussein being a ruthless and oppressing dictator, and allude to the fact that maybe... just maybe that might have been an underlying reason to take steps to rid the world of a known evil (as well as plant plant a seed of hope for other oppressed people), then those very same naysayers cry out, "No, no... it couldn't possibly be for humanitarian reasons... it was all about WMD and lies!" [8\|] Treasure, that's easy to explain, Bush ="bad" Obama = "good." Now they're going in for the oil but they tell us they're doing it not to find WMD but for "human rights." That's supposed to give everyone a warm, "fuzzy feeling" inside. And it's like a blank check that they can use whenever they feel like it. And who's "human rights" do they want to protect? Probably the same people who were dancing in the streets right after 9-11. I think most Americans would agree with you, we shouldn't be in foreign countries getting involved in their internal squabbals, fights or arguments! Want to hack each other to pieces with machetes, go right ahead! Somehow I'm supposed to "feel" bad about that as an American? I don't have a machete and I'm not in "Macheteland." What happens if I don't pay my mortgage next month? Is someone in "Macheteland" going to pay it for me? You know, to help me out with my "human rights" and all that shit? That's the new clarion call, "Human Rights!!! Human Rights!!! Human Rights!!!" After he gets the oil in Libya I wonder who else is going to get a good fucking dose of "human rights" shoved down their fucking throats whether they want them or not? Does Yemen or Syria have any oi,...er... I mean are they running a little low on (heh, heh) "human rights?" I can just see the red shirts on the Carriers, writing "I got your "human rights" right here!" on the 1,000 lbs bombs before they rack them on the F-18 Hornets.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 3:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Linked is the first claim of UK troops on the ground that I've seen. As the rebels captured an SAS unit on the ground in Libya not so long ago, it's hardly a surprise. A word of warning: the newspaper, "The Daily Mail" is a notoriously unreliable source of factual info so please take it with a pinch of salt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369763/Libya-Proof-winning-MoD-footage-airstrikes-Gaddafi-tanks.html As for the Daily Mail, if it is unreliable, why use it as a source at all ? [8D]

tweakabelle -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 4:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As for the Daily Mail, if it is unreliable, why use it as a source at all ? [8D] Politesub surely you know better than to ask sensible questions here! [:D] I was wondering if anyone else had seen similar reports actually .... and I didn't want to get anyone too excited

flcouple2009 -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 7:57:06 AM)
Bull, I can't speak to groups as I am only responsible for my own behavior. My thoughts and feeling have never changed. 1) I was in full support of Afghanistan. You have a country taken over by groups using it as a training ground and launching point for a war on us. The problem was if you do this there has to be a clear plan on change, We just can't go in shoot a bunch of people, burn down the camps, then get in a plane and fly off. Instead we moved on to the bad idea. 2) Invading Iraq. Horrible idea form the start which has only gotten worse with time. 3) Libya. Another bad idea. We should just mind our own business and tend to the problems in this country. I am concerned that the Libyan forces are just going to stay put. The rebels won't be able to budge them and unless we actually attack there will be a stalemate. We will be enforcing a no fly zone over Libya as we did with Iraq for years. Are we going to intervene in every country in the Middle East? Is Syria next? Who are we supporting? Are we going to try and rebuild every country while our own continues to fall apart?

popeye1250 -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 1:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Bull, I can't speak to groups as I am only responsible for my own behavior. My thoughts and feeling have never changed. 1) I was in full support of Afghanistan. You have a country taken over by groups using it as a training ground and launching point for a war on us. The problem was if you do this there has to be a clear plan on change, We just can't go in shoot a bunch of people, burn down the camps, then get in a plane and fly off. Instead we moved on to the bad idea. 2) Invading Iraq. Horrible idea form the start which has only gotten worse with time. 3) Libya. Another bad idea. We should just mind our own business and tend to the problems in this country. I am concerned that the Libyan forces are just going to stay put. The rebels won't be able to budge them and unless we actually attack there will be a stalemate. We will be enforcing a no fly zone over Libya as we did with Iraq for years. Are we going to intervene in every country in the Middle East? Is Syria next? Who are we supporting? Are we going to try and rebuild every country while our own continues to fall apart? FLCPL,...HERE! HERE!

Moonhead -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Here is the main point, Lib Dems went apoplectic over the mention that we were helping the Iraqi people. Probably because you weren't: your government only fell back on the "human rights" story after the "WMDs" and the "Albert Kwaida" stories were both demonstrated to be complete and utter bullshit, and the ~~GOP~~separatist neocon RINO wing was desperate to find another excuse for knocking over a government that was no threat to America* but owned a huge amount of oil reserves Haliburton fancied. Now, how is the intervention in Libya any more reprehensible than that one? At least it isn't pissing off the UN, unlike the chimp's crusade... *(Fuck yeah)

slvemike4u -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:36:53 PM)
Moon are you suggesting that there is "revisionist" history....and than there is actual history ?

Moonhead -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:38:45 PM)
No, I'm suggesting that the Republicans are incapable of sticking to one story for longer than a fortnight. [;)]

slvemike4u -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:40:02 PM)
Okay....no need to get huffy about it [:D]

Moonhead -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:44:32 PM)
Wasn't a huff, and I'm sorry it came over that way. I need to use more winkys. (We're a bit too close to this nonsense yet for any real history to emerge, in any case. But there's sure to be some very interesting histories published in another decade or so...)

slvemike4u -> RE: Pentagon may add more air power in Libya. (3/27/2011 2:55:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Wasn't a huff, and I'm sorry it came over that way. I need to use more winkys. (We're a bit too close to this nonsense yet for any real history to emerge, in any case. But there's sure to be some very interesting histories published in another decade or so...) It didn't moon...I was kidding with you,what is the purpose of putting the smiley thing there if no one pays attention to it.....lol.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125