Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
:murray: WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! :murray:

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Libya
Topic Started: Mar 16 2011, 06:06 PM (1,210 Views)
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
The Evil Smurfs,Mar 25 2011
07:00 PM
Cobdenia,Mar 25 2011
03:52 AM
I don't know...if we kill him it might stir up anti-western feeling amongst his supporters.

:hahahaha:

You mean aside from the fact that they already considers us the Great White Satan and want our men to die, our women to be raped, and our children enslaved?

Fair point - I meant more the "fence sitters" rather then supporters
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snefaldia
Member Avatar
No one's hotter than Bea.
Charter Nation
I lived with an Egyptian-American Arab woman for a year, and based on her explanation (and this news cycle), several things are true:

1. The old people (or the leaders) hate the west for what happened in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

2. The majority of Arab countries have a gigantic percentage of their population dominated by people under the age of 25. Most of whom are unemployed (figures range from 12% to 35% young unemployment depending country/who's reporting)

3. Young people don't have a reason to hate the west like their parents did, and a really resentful of the elders who are keeping them poor.

4. The Islam of the youth is very different of that of the old folks. they tend to be more cosmopolitan, more informed, and more liberal with their faith, even though they can be very devout.


I think these changes bode well for the future of the arab world, providing the west makes the right steps. I really hope the spectre of the Scary Brown Muslim gets challenged and dispelled, because I got to know some amazing people when Nada lived with me and it's a shame that's what most westerners think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Evil Smurfs
Member Avatar
Blue Nazi Devil
[ *  *  * ]
Snefaldia,Mar 26 2011
09:39 AM
I really hope the spectre of the Scary Brown Muslim gets challenged and dispelled

I'd rather the actual "scary brown muslims" get dispelled, instead of slandering people with legitamate complaints as racists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snefaldia
Member Avatar
No one's hotter than Bea.
Charter Nation
Yeah! let's focus on the color du jour. Of course, it'd be much too convenient to take a look at the role of Qutbism and the Saudi Salafist interpretations of Islam (i.e. the ideologies of anti-western terrorists like Zawahiri and bin Laden), and how those schools became popular due to... hey! Western involvement in Arab nations.

Why waste time addressing the roots of an annoying weed when we've got a frickin' sweet drone to bomb the everloving fuck out of it? Those things are goddamn awesome.

EDIT/DISCLAIMER: I wrote this after consuming alcoholic beverages, so sarcasm may have been needlessly multiplied.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iron Felix
Member Avatar
Time Magazine's Person of the Year
Admin
I've only met nice Muslims in real life. I saw some scary Muslims on TV though that I'm pretty sure want to kill me. I'll stick with my Muslim friends and stay away from those TV Muslims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snefaldia
Member Avatar
No one's hotter than Bea.
Charter Nation
Muammar Gadhafi? Or John Galliano?

ARE THEY THE SAME PERSON????
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sionis
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I'm all for the international intervention in Libya. My only regret is that it did not begin sooner.

The United Nations needs serious atonement after it left Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur at the mercy of genocidal maniacs, resulting in 2 million-plus deaths.

While Libya is all over the airwaves, the oil-deprived Côte d'Ivoire is being soundly ignored, and civilians left to their own devices against goverment thugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivorian_Civil...ntial_elections

And here in South America, that world-class clown Hugo Chavez from Venezuela knows no limits to bravado and obnoxious militarist rhetoric.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Antarctic Kawaiians
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kenny,Mar 25 2011
08:18 AM
As far as the whole "he should have gone to Congress first" thing goes, I'm not buying it, principally because it is being advanced mostly by ego-sore congressmen (and other assorted blowhards) who are pissed off that they were robbed of the chance to grandstand on the floor of Congress before the operation began. Like it or not, Congress is not the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces; President Obama is. He's a cowardly, morbidly indecisive commander in chief, but he's what we got, and I'm not so sure that the complaint about ignoring Congress necessarily lends weight to the contention that he was already dragging his feet and wasting time even without congressional meddling. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional anyway, but that's a different debate altogether.

You may be right about the War Powers Act being unconstitutional, but we'll never know unless Congress grows a pair and calls the President out on it. Congress may not be the Commander in Chief, but the Constitution lays out explicitly that they have exclusive power to declare war and make peace. And I don't care what you call it, dropping TLAMs on someone else's country is an act of war, one which Obama doesn't have the authority to do without Congressional approval.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zarquon Froods
Member Avatar
Steamaholic
[ *  *  * ]
I could be wrong, but I believe we are able to act under the guise of the UN without a formal declaration of war. They are termed as military engagements that are authorized by the Security Council and funded by Congress. Korea is a good example of this, Vietnam was an extended military action without a formal declaration of war.

Obama is the CiC but he still has to have congressional approval regardless of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, it is the law until it is removed. A breech of that would be grounds for impeachment, but that in itself could rule the act unconstitutional and he'd be safe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eco
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Antarctic Kawaiians,Apr 2 2011
12:50 PM
Kenny,Mar 25 2011
08:18 AM
As far as the whole "he should have gone to Congress first" thing goes, I'm not buying it, principally because it is being advanced mostly by ego-sore congressmen (and other assorted blowhards) who are pissed off that they were robbed of the chance to grandstand on the floor of Congress before the operation began. Like it or not, Congress is not the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces; President Obama is. He's a cowardly, morbidly indecisive commander in chief, but he's what we got, and I'm not so sure that the complaint about ignoring Congress necessarily lends weight to the contention that he was already dragging his feet and wasting time even without congressional meddling. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional anyway, but that's a different debate altogether.

You may be right about the War Powers Act being unconstitutional, but we'll never know unless Congress grows a pair and calls the President out on it. Congress may not be the Commander in Chief, but the Constitution lays out explicitly that they have exclusive power to declare war and make peace. And I don't care what you call it, dropping TLAMs on someone else's country is an act of war, one which Obama doesn't have the authority to do without Congressional approval.

The degree to which the President is hamstrung by Congress is already extraordinary, why encourage more of this shit? I'm amazed that you guys can vote in a government and then have a system that denies them the opportunity to enact the platform they stood on at election. That's some fucked up shit right there.

And, yeah, I know the UK system's bollocks, too. In different ways. Anyway, why let that get in the way of a rant...?

All in all, on this occasion, I approve of the West bombing the crap out of unpleasant brown people. I think I now need to take a long lie down while the ghost of Bill Hicks sodomises my soul.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Evil Smurfs
Member Avatar
Blue Nazi Devil
[ *  *  * ]
eco,Apr 2 2011
05:18 PM
The degree to which the President is hamstrung by Congress is already extraordinary, why encourage more of this shit?

It's hard to stage a military coup when you can't do anything with the military without approval. The President is the Commander in Chief, but that means he calls the shots, he still has to ask for permission. Personally, I love the irony of people saying Bush was a warmonger when he went to war with Congressional approval and an international coalition twice as large.

And no, I'm not saying Obama is positioning himself to be a dictator.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zarquon Froods
Member Avatar
Steamaholic
[ *  *  * ]
I enjoy it when they hang themselves. This situation is bureaucracy at its finest. They will scream until they are blue in the face about how we need the War Powers Act, then they say that the President has been lax on his response to Libya. Personally, I don't like the War Powers Act just because it involves politicians making war decisions which always fucks up the outcome as we found out in Korea and Vietnam.

The way I've always thought worked best was the President as CiC sending a General to take control of a situation and letting him do his thing. That's what George H.W. Bush did with Schwarzkopf and it was a large military success.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Zarquon Froods,Apr 3 2011
03:55 AM
I enjoy it when they hang themselves. This situation is bureaucracy at its finest. They will scream until they are blue in the face about how we need the War Powers Act, then they say that the President has been lax on his response to Libya. Personally, I don't like the War Powers Act just because it involves politicians making war decisions which always fucks up the outcome as we found out in Korea and Vietnam. 

The way I've always thought worked best was the President as CiC sending a General to take control of a situation and letting him do his thing. That's what George H.W. Bush did with Schwarzkopf and it was a large military success.

Indeed; you wouldn't want someone with nothing but military experience running a country, thus you shouldn't let civilian politicians run a war. Cobblers and their last's etc. Most military fuck ups in history have originated from political interference...

EDIT: That's not to say that General's should have control over who to go to war with - that is a foreign policy decision - but they shouldn't stick their nose into operations
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Retired WerePenguins
Member Avatar
Professional Sushi Eater
[ *  *  * ]
Just found and retweeted the following interesting news item:
Quote:
 
[Hot Air]: NATO runs short on attack jets in Libya: As predicted. When the US announced on Friday that it would ... http://bit.ly/fxMZXu


Quote:
 
Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

“We will need more strike capability,” a Nato official said.


:dumbass: I don't think four more jets is going to eoforce a no fly zone. :dumbass:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zarquon Froods
Member Avatar
Steamaholic
[ *  *  * ]
If I might lend a machete to this intellectual thicket. I had an interesting conversation on this subject last night with a few friends of mine. The UN has decided that the current powers in Libya have become corrupt and oppressive and has authorized military intervention. What if the US were to have an uprising of citizens who were tired of huge tax increases and out of control spending. Would the UN be willing to intervene and even then whose side would they be on?

Not trying to make a comparison of the US to Libya, but it does make you think that if enough people vote to invade one surely it could happen to another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Find themes at Zathyus Networks