Libya 2011 Demonstrations (28 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

And the US agrees to extended airstrikes an additional 48 hours for NATO.

Whatever happened to pulling out by Wednesday, Obama?

I don't understand why people listen to Obama anyway, it isn't worth it. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Everyone should understand by now that he'll just do the opposite of whatever he says.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

Well, there are two obvious reasons. First, he just announced his intent to run for re-election, so it means his campaign is starting. Showing force in Libya will help him, or at least that's what his people think. Second, the rebels are sucking balls at rebelling. Without international support, Libya will be a massacre and once again Europe needs someone to do their dirty business.

There are all sorts of massacres going on in the world. Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain. Why not provide support for them, too?

 

[Enron]

There are all sorts of massacres going on in the world. Why not provide support for them, too?

The rest of the world doesn't care about those massacres.


EDIT: I don't support the President's decisions regarding Libya, even though I understand the reasons behind them.

 

[X Æ A-12]

I don't understand why people listen to Obama anyway, it isn't worth it. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Everyone should understand by now that he'll just do the opposite of whatever he says.

As disappointing as Obama has been I have to say it is somewhat satisfying to say I was right and rub it in the faces of all those who were saying what a "different" type of president and leader he would be.

There are all sorts of massacres going on in the world. Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain. Why not provide support for them, too?

Exactly what I said just after the U.N. ratified the decision for the no-fly zone and I was made out to look like an ass here. We have no greater obligation to Libya than any other ongoing humanitarian crisis, even all of the non-violent ones that nobody has mentioned so far.

 

[Enron]

Exactly what I said just after the U.N. ratified the decision for the no-fly zone and I was made out to look like an ass here. We have no greater obligation to Libya than any other ongoing humanitarian crisis, even all of the non-violent ones that nobody has mentioned so far.

It's very similar to the Bosnia/Rwanda debacle in the 1990s. Why one and not the other?

 

[Bjerknes]

Pay attention to ALL of this. The guy nails it. Every single bit.



I loved the "crazed Ms. Rice" part. Totally true. She's a shithead psycho.

 

[Fred]

Well, there are two obvious reasons. First, he just announced his intent to run for re-election, so it means his campaign is starting. Showing force in Libya will help him, or at least that's what his people think. Second, the rebels are sucking balls at rebelling. Without international support, Libya will be a massacre and once again Europe needs someone to do their dirty business.

What do you expect. You do know that the overwhelming majority of the rebels are civilian volunteers who didn't get more than a few weeks training right? You really expect them to be able to beat Gedaffi's forces that are better trained and better equipped? The whole thing isn't balanced anyway, now with the coalition forces enforcing a no fly zone it made it a little more balanced, but not enough really. Without arming the rebels, It isn't realistic to expect the rebels to beat Gedaffi's forces.

 

[Bjerknes]

And even if we do arm the rebels, they still might not stand a chance.

That's why sending troops in is a very real possibility. If we start seeing "our boys" losing badly, we'll have to step in, literally, because we have so much at stake over there.

 

[Fred]

And even if we do arm the rebels, they still might not stand a chance.

That's why sending troops in is a very real possibility. If we start seeing "our boys" losing badly, we'll have to step in, literally, because we have so much at stake over there.

Arm the rebels and enforce a new fly zone, i don't see why they won't stand a chance in that case?

The only obstacle in front of arming the rebels, is that it happened in Afghanistan, and it didn't work out very well in the end. Thats why this time, its going to be hard to convince the US and Europe to arm the rebels. I think the transitional national council isn't being transparent enough about the people that they appoint. They should be completely transparent, most of the people on the transitional national council are not even close to being radical Islamist sympathizers, in fact some of them are western educated neo liberals. They just need to show that to the world, would make a world of difference imo.

 

[delrey]

Pay attention to ALL of this. The guy nails it. Every single bit.



I loved the "crazed Ms. Rice" part. Totally true. She's a shithead psycho.

She chocked. The guys dick was too big.
Yeah, i just find that Alex Jones reported this

 

[Enron]

What do you expect. You do know that the overwhelming majority of the rebels are civilian volunteers who didn't get more than a few weeks training right? You really expect them to be able to beat Gedaffi's forces that are better trained and better equipped? The whole thing isn't balanced anyway, now with the coalition forces enforcing a no fly zone it made it a little more balanced, but not enough really. Without arming the rebels, It isn't realistic to expect the rebels to beat Gedaffi's forces.

I don't think I ever said I expected the rebels to be Gedaffi's forces without outside help. So no Fred, it was not surprising to me.

 

[ReBeL]

Some news say that Nato bombarded rebels in Brega city and killed 45 of them.

There is stronger feeling now that Nato's goal of this operation is dividing Libya and forbiding any party to win the war in order to occupy Libya later.

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

Even before they start it was obvious they were going to kill civilians. They have no intention of helping people.

 

[ReBeL]

Even before they start it was obvious they were going to kill civilians. They have no intention of helping people.

I have to admit I was under the impression that they have changed, but never they will.

 

[JuveJay]

Even before they start it was obvious they were going to kill civilians. They have no intention of helping people.

Well yeah, that's the nature of bombs and missiles. They don't really differentiate between rebels and loyalists.

If you are saying NATO are going out deliberately kill rebels, I think you're being very silly.

 

[X Æ A-12]

I have to admit I was under the impression that they have changed, but never they will.

Yea I thought you were for this? You realize that no country has the capability to bombard another without potentially serious civilian causalities and it's not going to stop until intervention stops.

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

Well yeah, that's the nature of bombs and missiles. They don't really differentiate between rebels and loyalists.

If you are saying NATO are going out deliberately kill rebels, I think your being very silly.

Deliberately? I don't know but their indifference towards human life will certainly increase the number of civilian deads.

 

[JuveJay]

Deliberately? I don't know but their indifference towards human life will certainly increase the number of civilian deads.

Maybe, but what other options would you consider?

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

Not bombing everbody who is shooting could be first step. This is not first time they are bombing weddings and celebrations.

 

[X Æ A-12]

If the Libyan rebels have any better alternative than Western intervention I'd love to hear it, Turk.

Doesn't seem like any of the Arab countries are doing shit to help, just sitting back and criticizing.