Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

U.S. Attacks Libya

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 2:26:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 2:21:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:53:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:


I am afraid this is 1984 Afghanistan all over again...

Possibly, but for human rights, you can support that people should have the right to choose who leads them, right?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 10:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is 1776 all over again, when the French helped American rebels overthrow the tyrannical British regime.

This is 1991 all over again, when the U.S. engaged Iraq on a limited basis on Kuwati soil only, driving Saddam Hussein's remaining forces back into Iraq, and bottling him up under a no-fly zone that boxed him in and prevented him from subjugating his own people (and the people of Kuwait as well).

This is 1999 all over again, when the U.S. joined with our NATO allies to destroy Milosevic's military and put a stop to genocide.

If you're going to compare the actions in Libya to other actions, make sure you do so correctly. In Afghanistan, we gave the Afghans a few weapons, but that was it ... we didn't follow through, we didn't directly engage the tyrants ourselves (in that case, the Soviets -- granted, there were very significant reasons that we could not engage the USSR directly -- but good reason or not, that was an important contrast).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 10:28:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 10:12:37 PM, PervRat wrote:
This is 1776 all over again, when the French helped American rebels overthrow the tyrannical British regime.

I think the french in 1776 were a little more involved then we are planning on getting in Libya.


This is 1991 all over again, when the U.S. engaged Iraq on a limited basis on Kuwati soil only, driving Saddam Hussein's remaining forces back into Iraq, and bottling him up under a no-fly zone that boxed him in and prevented him from subjugating his own people (and the people of Kuwait as well).

This is 1999 all over again, when the U.S. joined with our NATO allies to destroy Milosevic's military and put a stop to genocide.

If you're going to compare the actions in Libya to other actions, make sure you do so correctly. In Afghanistan, we gave the Afghans a few weapons, but that was it ... we didn't follow through, we didn't directly engage the tyrants ourselves (in that case, the Soviets -- granted, there were very significant reasons that we could not engage the USSR directly -- but good reason or not, that was an important contrast).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 10:28:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 2:27:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you really cared about human rights, a puppet government must be established.

Not a must, but certainly an option.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.
Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:25:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

I'll wait until all is said and done before passing a haste judgement.

First, we know that we cannot afford ground troops, that will make this extremely unpopular, regardless of the end results.

If we don't use ground troops to actually force Madaffi (or however his name is spelt), then we have to rely on diplomacy (or the rebels to overthrow him).

Remember that we are taking the side of "wanting to minimize human loss of life." So we really want him to simply step down and run away (like in Egypt), rather than have the rebels march on Tripoli and have thousands more die (since that won't really be following our stated goal).

I worry that this is going to split the country into an East and West, and there will be a long war between the two, and we are not going to be able to hold a no fly zone for that long.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:49:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.

Even though the French led the first air strikes, and a Canadian is in overall command? It's more than a few token Europeans and Canadians, and though the Americans do contribute hugely, it was the U.S. that was pushed into it and not the Europeans. It marks a significant change in the handling of these situations.

Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.

I never said the revolution would be good for the Libyan people, just that if it succeeded it would look good for Obama.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:54:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:25:09 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

I'll wait until all is said and done before passing a haste judgement.

First, we know that we cannot afford ground troops, that will make this extremely unpopular, regardless of the end results.

Quite true. Ground troops would add messiness to a messy enough situation.


If we don't use ground troops to actually force Madaffi (or however his name is spelt), then we have to rely on diplomacy (or the rebels to overthrow him).

A mixture most likely. If Gaddafi can see an escape other than the Hague or the gallows in Libya, then he'll most likely abdicate, but only if all hope is truly lost.


Remember that we are taking the side of "wanting to minimize human loss of life." So we really want him to simply step down and run away (like in Egypt), rather than have the rebels march on Tripoli and have thousands more die (since that won't really be following our stated goal).

If they really wanted to minimize human loss of life the Coalition would have implemented an immediate ceasefire. However it's clear it was a good excuse to get involved in overthrowing gaddafi.


I worry that this is going to split the country into an East and West, and there will be a long war between the two, and we are not going to be able to hold a no fly zone for that long.

A long war will f*ck Gaddafi over. The Libyan rebels problem is there disorganization. They have no clear leadership, no clear government and most importantly, no military organisation. Give them a few months and all of those will be accomplished, It's only a matter of time until the Coalition starts arming the rebels big time and training them.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 1:16:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 11:00:59 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"



While we wait for Obama to return his Nobel Peace Prize.

Excuse me, motherf*cker.

David Cameron, Original Eton Gangsta, steppin' up to NATO and sayin' "yo dawgs, Gaddafi be wack, killin' civvies with tanks and that. Gotta mobilise some planes an' a carrier too, or next time Gadaffi might be comin' for you!"

So NATO turned around and lowered it's shades, saw Libyans fleeing and bein' used as slaves, saw Gadaffi and his bodyguards, living the life, decided it was time to level the strife.

Rebels on the ground screamin' "allah akhbar"
as in the horizon, tornado fighta bombas
droppin' some munitions at the speed of sound
Makin' Mummar check his closet, the f*cking clown.

So now Arab League is all. "guys, chill, chill"
"Gadaff's a goner and he's writing his will"
"Don't be givin' us a reason to be a playa hata"
"but y'all throwin' down your bombs and Gadaffi's all "see ya later!"

So when y'all yanks be talkin' yo smack
about American forces leadin' the attack
best be remebering Original Eton Gansta
Dave Cam'ron's gonna get his man
this life or after.

Also f*ck you in general. What the f*ck are we, Scotch mist?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:23:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 1:16:52 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 3/20/2011 11:00:59 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"



While we wait for Obama to return his Nobel Peace Prize.

Excuse me, motherf*cker.

David Cameron, Original Eton Gangsta, steppin' up to NATO and sayin' "yo dawgs, Gaddafi be wack, killin' civvies with tanks and that. Gotta mobilise some planes an' a carrier too, or next time Gadaffi might be comin' for you!"

So NATO turned around and lowered it's shades, saw Libyans fleeing and bein' used as slaves, saw Gadaffi and his bodyguards, living the life, decided it was time to level the strife.

Rebels on the ground screamin' "allah akhbar"
as in the horizon, tornado fighta bombas
droppin' some munitions at the speed of sound
Makin' Mummar check his closet, the f*cking clown.

So now Arab League is all. "guys, chill, chill"
"Gadaff's a goner and he's writing his will"
"Don't be givin' us a reason to be a playa hata"
"but y'all throwin' down your bombs and Gadaffi's all "see ya later!"

So when y'all yanks be talkin' yo smack
about American forces leadin' the attack
best be remebering Original Eton Gansta
Dave Cam'ron's gonna get his man
this life or after.

Also f*ck you in general. What the f*ck are we, Scotch mist?

lol, that was awesome.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:39:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:49:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.

Even though the French led the first air strikes, and a Canadian is in overall command? It's more than a few token Europeans and Canadians, and though the Americans do contribute hugely, it was the U.S. that was pushed into it and not the Europeans. It marks a significant change in the handling of these situations.

Yeah that courageous air strike by the undaunted French...bwah ha ha. US - NATO = ?

It's all window dressing Panda. God forbid this looks like Iraq, oh wait....

BTW - the US gets virtually no oil from Libya.
Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.

I never said the revolution would be good for the Libyan people, just that if it succeeded it would look good for Obama.

You mean that the dictator will be thrown out of the country or killed and it will be left in an uncertain mess? Man that sounds so familiar.

It's not over yet, and Obama has not ruled out land forces.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:23:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:39:11 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:49:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.

Even though the French led the first air strikes, and a Canadian is in overall command? It's more than a few token Europeans and Canadians, and though the Americans do contribute hugely, it was the U.S. that was pushed into it and not the Europeans. It marks a significant change in the handling of these situations.

Yeah that courageous air strike by the undaunted French...bwah ha ha. US - NATO = ?

It's all window dressing Panda. God forbid this looks like Iraq, oh wait....

It doesn't look like iraq.

No land troops.
We are not trying to setup a government.
There is a massive movement of the Libyian people that want this (and are willing to fight and die for it).
We are (hopefully) going to be letting the people put up their own elected government.


BTW - the US gets virtually no oil from Libya.

which indicates that this may be for oil. It wouldn't make sense to do this if we were already getting the oil. But if we aren't getting that oil and want it, this may be an indicator.

Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.

I never said the revolution would be good for the Libyan people, just that if it succeeded it would look good for Obama.

You mean that the dictator will be thrown out of the country or killed and it will be left in an uncertain mess? Man that sounds so familiar.

It's not over yet, and Obama has not ruled out land forces.

He also hasn't ruled out playing a few rounds of golf with Gaddafi, before he leaves power. Though it is extremely unlikely. Obama knows (or at least ought to know) how opposed Americans would be to ground forces. Ever since military strikes began, most of the news has been "we better not start putting any ground troops in there."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did the president specifically say there were not going to be any ground troops in his speech?
Obama has announced that in no circumstances will the United States introduce ground troops into Libya.
Something like that?

What is the UN resolution going to do to stop Qaddafi from burning all the oil up like Saddam did with Kuwait? There are no ground troops.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:44:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 2:40:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Did the president specifically say there were not going to be any ground troops in his speech?
Obama has announced that in no circumstances will the United States introduce ground troops into Libya.
Something like that?

What is the UN resolution going to do to stop Qaddafi from burning all the oil up like Saddam did with Kuwait? There are no ground troops.

No no, in an interview last night he said he wouldn't rule anything out.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:50:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 2:44:01 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/30/2011 2:40:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Did the president specifically say there were not going to be any ground troops in his speech?
Obama has announced that in no circumstances will the United States introduce ground troops into Libya.
Something like that?

What is the UN resolution going to do to stop Qaddafi from burning all the oil up like Saddam did with Kuwait? There are no ground troops.

No no, in an interview last night he said he wouldn't rule anything out.

Thanks!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:39:11 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:49:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.

Even though the French led the first air strikes, and a Canadian is in overall command? It's more than a few token Europeans and Canadians, and though the Americans do contribute hugely, it was the U.S. that was pushed into it and not the Europeans. It marks a significant change in the handling of these situations.

Yeah that courageous air strike by the undaunted French...bwah ha ha. US - NATO = ?

The EU basically, lol.


It's all window dressing Panda. God forbid this looks like Iraq, oh wait....

It isn't. :P


BTW - the US gets virtually no oil from Libya.

Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.

Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.

I never said the revolution would be good for the Libyan people, just that if it succeeded it would look good for Obama.

You mean that the dictator will be thrown out of the country or killed and it will be left in an uncertain mess? Man that sounds so familiar.

It's not over yet, and Obama has not ruled out land forces.

Gates has said they don't plan to deploy troops. More to the point victory, a.k.a the rebels winning, will look good for Obamas track record. It's better than a defeat.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 3:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Possibly, but for human rights, you can support that people should have the right to choose who leads them, right?

An individual has the right to declare a master over himself, but no, there is no right to choose a government-in-general
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 3/30/2011 1:39:11 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:49:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:23:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:15:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No one else sees the limited U.S. intervention as mildly remarkable? That the U.S. has only gone as far as to establish a no-fly zone, one which is being led by non-U.S. forces. The fact the U.S. doesn't want to stick it's nose in after the record of the past decade is something positive , and I think that if the Libyan revolution is successful that Obama should score some approval.

First of all, the no fly zone is so incredibly successful, yeah. Of course Libya doesn't have an air-force, but still remarkable that he couldn't get that one 1962 fighter jet with one engine off the ground because the courageous French were able to pick it off while it was still on the ground - impressive. Then, of the cruise missiles that are being launched from the US ships about 85% say made in USA on them. You must know that NATO is the US, with a few token Canadians and Europeans in there to make them feel part of it.

Even though the French led the first air strikes, and a Canadian is in overall command? It's more than a few token Europeans and Canadians, and though the Americans do contribute hugely, it was the U.S. that was pushed into it and not the Europeans. It marks a significant change in the handling of these situations.

Yeah that courageous air strike by the undaunted French...bwah ha ha. US - NATO = ?

The EU basically, lol.

No seriously. Oh wait, you forgot the Canadians. Invincible.

It's all window dressing Panda. God forbid this looks like Iraq, oh wait....

It isn't. :P

He is so over his head; he's just lucky he has the press on his side.

BTW - the US gets virtually no oil from Libya.

Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.

Really, and that doesn't sound familiar? BTW, i haven't heard of a Libyan terrorist in a while. I'm sure they exist, but we don't go to war with every terrorist country now then do we? We don't even go to war with every country that's in rebellion that has terrorists, now then do we?

Next, so the revolution is successful then???? Revolutions in that region are usually sooooo good for the people that actually live there. Your assumption is that another tyranny won't replace this one? Come on, remember of where we are speaking. The parallels to Iraq are startling, just the window dressing is different, and the Press is on the side of Obama.

I never said the revolution would be good for the Libyan people, just that if it succeeded it would look good for Obama.

You mean that the dictator will be thrown out of the country or killed and it will be left in an uncertain mess? Man that sounds so familiar.

It's not over yet, and Obama has not ruled out land forces.

Gates has said they don't plan to deploy troops. More to the point victory, a.k.a the rebels winning, will look good for Obamas track record. It's better than a defeat.
It's cost $600M so far. Don't know if you've heard but we're broke. People aren't as cavalier about government money these days.
Also this doesn't look so good for Obama: http://www.reuters.com...

Oh and his disapproval rating is high. If he were to run today he would lose.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 4:25:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.
Therefore they should invade every country with terrorists? Let us list a few:

- North Korea
- Iran
- Pakistan
- India
- China
- Ireland
- Belarus

Does Libya pose a greater threat to the Western states than Russia, which has spies everywhere? No. Nonsense.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 1:05:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 4:25:29 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.
Therefore they should invade every country with terrorists? Let us list a few:

- North Korea
- Iran
- Pakistan
- India
- China
- Ireland
- Belarus

Does Libya pose a greater threat to the Western states than Russia, which has spies everywhere? No. Nonsense.

You forgot the U.S. on your list. Plenty of Timothy McVeighs and Ted Kaczynskis right here. We should invade ourselves!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:01:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 4:25:29 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.
Therefore they should invade every country with terrorists?

I didn't use it to justify their involvement, just to give a plausible reason for their involvement more to the point, let's examine which of these nations have terrorists which have been involved in attacking the U.S. and which have been state-sponsored.

Let us list a few:

- North Korea

Not recently.

- Iran

Nope

- Pakistan

To an extent, but not technically state-sponsored.

- India

As a threat to the U.S?

- China

Disputable.

- Ireland

Most of the terrorists are long gone.

- Belarus

In the U.S.?


Does Libya pose a greater threat to the Western states than Russia, which has spies everywhere? No. Nonsense.

Is Russia as easy to attack as Libya? No, nonsense.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:31:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 4:25:29 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/31/2011 3:12:47 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right, but the do get a lot of terrorists from there.
Therefore they should invade every country with terrorists? Let us list a few:

- North Korea
- Iran
- Pakistan
- India
- China
- Ireland
- Belarus

Does Libya pose a greater threat to the Western states than Russia, which has spies everywhere? No. Nonsense.

You have to consider the cost of fighting those terrorists as well. Taking out 100 terrorists for $10,000 is better than taking out 100,000 for $1,000,000,000.

It is not simply "because they have terrorists," it's because they have terrorists which are easy targets and have minimal backlashes in the world opinion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 8:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:01:28 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I didn't use it to justify their involvement, just to give a plausible reason for their involvement more to the point, let's examine which of these nations have terrorists which have been involved in attacking the U.S. and which have been state-sponsored.
I did not claim you did it either.

Let us list a few:

- North Korea

Not recently.
Do you want them to launch a nuke before America should invade them? And, what do you even mean by "not recently"? That is completely irrelevant to my point. You cannot make a logical statement that North Korea has had no terrorists recently, nor that it has not made terrorist attacks recently either. They have terrorists, and they act upon terrorism. Recently goes back a few days only? How about a few months? Due to these excuses America only picks on tiny countries with no defense. Such cowardice.

Nope
No terrorists? Have you noticed how nobody dared to continue the protests in Tehran? The police launching bloody strikes on the protesters is not similar to what Libya did to its own people?

To an extent, but not technically state-sponsored.
No, of course not. The regime is not corrupted at all, nor does it seem to treat its people inhumanely once in a while.

As a threat to the U.S?
Yes. Pakistan is in the interest of America, and surely India is quite a threat to Pakistan in any difficult situation. Moreover, what is it with "threats" and "U.S"? What kind of threats? Name one threat anyone or anything from Libya posed to the United States. If anything, Europe is by far the most logical destination for bombs had Libya ever decided to launch any kind of sneaky strikes.

Disputable.
Remains Communist, violates so-called Human Rights, poses cyber threats to USA probably more than any other country, and that is "disputable"? What kind of logic is it to dispute anything about the threats of China, but not Libya?

Most of the terrorists are long gone.
Sure, but now that the country is not very powerful, not very big, and quite Western, I am fairly sure that America could get into it and finish off the rest of the terrorists. Smallest first, correct?

In the U.S.?
In any difficult case, more than Libya does.

Is Russia as easy to attack as Libya? No, nonsense.
No, but that is why it is cowardice and completely illogical to attack small and weaker states and spread bloodshed year by year. No country should be attacked with such idiotic reasoning. I do not care if it is the Vatican or the Russian Federation. What I care is whether or not it is logical. If Russia threatens the entire world and wishes to invade Europe, then it should face retaliation. If Libya does something similar, it should face retaliation. However, Libya is no exclusion to numerous other countries in the world. Other states are even at worse situations these days. America should learn how to treat its own people humanely before they start lecturing other people. And they should stop this idiotic bloodshed from their side.