Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Your entire life makes no sense. And 99.9% of your posts.

These are topics for adults. You should not be reading what is too advanced for you.

[Trilby]

Kisses, tw! you make my day -as always!

[smoothmoniker]

I'm appalled by the cowardice of the Arab League. After asking for Western intervention to declare and defend a no-fly zone, they are now condemning the military action need to enforce it.

Did they think that KGQuiddaffi's air defenses would be gently removed with unicorn kisses and rainbow sprinkles?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

These are topics for adults. You should not be reading what is too advanced for you.

Then recuse yourself at once, or publicly confess that you are a grotesque hypocrite, wholly incapable of politics, and have never enjoyed an adulthood. You are the very last person to be talking about "topics for adults."

I KNOW how babyish you get when you are crossed. So does everyone here. I shall demonstrate it by crossing you now, you amateur twit. Your entire mentality is designed and constructed to elicit the contempt of the virtuous, and owing to your posts, my contempt for your mentality is nine times bottomless, and nine times beyond that. TW, you are carefully, systemically worthless, and if you were a horse they'd've shot you.

[tw]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I'm appalled by the cowardice of the Arab League. After asking for Western intervention to declare and defend a no-fly zone, they are now condemning the military action need to enforce it.

Apparently what they heard is not what they were told. The UN resolution was worded to permit interpretation. Attacks were implemented without support for Arab nations. So many were invited to participate and rejected the invitation. Could not make a decision fast enough.

Appreciate Sarkozy's position. Benghazi would have been conquered in days had the French not pushed for action. Tobruk also probably conquered. The Arab league did not care. Sarkozy did not have enough time to rally Arab support.

Ironically, it was Kaddafi's own words (threatening a massacre) that may have gotten the UN resolution approved. But that did not give Arab nations enough time to appreciate a problem.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

~snip!
If you voted for Obama you should never say another bad thing about Bush and his attacks on Iraq.... Obama basically just stuck his foot in another trap and used US forces to attack another country based on a UN mandate.

ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. You and your ilk may think that we are all blinded to the savior, but that's just rhetoric poppycock.

Did YOU agree with everything Bush did. I don't think so, or so you professed. Part of being an informed patriotic Amurkin, right?

At any rate, I'll still laugh and point at Bush.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. ...

Yeah! Some people can think for themselves. Not repubicans.... but some of us others can!

[classicman]

I wonder if the attack on Gaddafi’s compound was nothing more than a near miss.
I find it far too convenient that an administrative building gets bombed within Gaddafi's compound when journalists repeatedly report that location has no "command control capabilities." Additionally, the responses from the allied side seem less than genuine. Some telling quotes:

neither Gadhafi nor his residence were intended targets of the bombing late Sunday.

A coalition military official

then another from the US Commander:

"We are not targeting his residence."

U.S. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney

While the US denied targeting Gaddafi, whose whereabouts were unknown yesterday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule it out, saying it depended on "circumstances at the time".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@smooth - Thats what they have done for ages - they speak from both sides of their mouths. They never actually say anything definitive. They have always played both sides. Thats why they cannot be trusted.

[smoothmoniker]

TW - it's hard to see their reversal as more than political pandering to their own populace. They want Kadafi gone, but they also know there is political capital to be gained at home by being "anti-western".

The courageous act would be to stand up and say "The arab world and the west hold the value of human life in common, and we act together to protect that value. This is a model of cooperation to be respected" even if there is a political cost to that action.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I find it far too convenient that an administrative building gets bombed within Gaddafi's compound when journalists repeatedly report that location has no "command control capabilities."

From what it seems, the quickest way to end this conflict is just to put a bullet in Gaddafi's head. The military hierarchy is very unstable, by design, so there is a good chance everything will fall apart if Gaddafi is taken out. But, publicly acknowledging this would send out a shit storm that Obama, and the US military in general, really doesn't want right now. The response he is getting from both sides right now is ridiculous.

[infinite monkey]

I know! Let's get SADDAM! Mission accomplished!

[piercehawkeye45]

End the conflict as in "needed" UN or US involvement. Nothing we can do to stop Libya from going into a bloody civil war. But, hey, at least everyone would then be on more or less equal footing...

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I know! Let's get SADDAM! Mission accomplished!

Troll.

[infinite monkey]

Tho thenthitive.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

From what it seems, the quickest way to end this conflict is just to put a bullet in Gaddafi's head. The military hierarchy is very unstable, by design, so there is a good chance everything will fall apart if Gaddafi is taken out. But, publicly acknowledging this would send out a shit storm that Obama, and the US military in general, really doesn't want right now. The response he is getting from both sides right now is ridiculous.

No government is going to agree to kill a leader that still has nominal control of their country! Talk about opening the floodgates. Oh, bye Obama! Bang-bang, now you're just like JFK. Oh sorry David (actually too dull to assassinate).

You do not set up a mandate for assassination, no matter how psychotic they are.

And if "we" killed Gaddafi, wouldn't we then be responsible for the mess left behind? This is a dictator who has personally acted as Libya's government for FORTY TWO YEARS. The world was a very different place in 1969, and Gaddafi has hardly been interested in sharing progress in infrastructure and development with his country. Oh sorry, I mean outside of his own family.

About the only thing Libyan society is replete with is spies and censorship. Do we really want to be captain of this ship? The choice for the next leader of Libya has to come from the Libyans, once they have overthrown him. And yes, it's going to be messy. We aided the Mudjahadeen in getting the Russians out of Afghanistan. And left the door open for the Taliban. Let's try not to get too involved this time.