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 (1,208 Views)
Allech-Atreus
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Except Libya has been under a brutally oppressive dictatorship for the last, oh, forty years, and while the core of the problems in the US had their origin in the Reagan era, they really only began to get bad at the end of the nineties. Also we aren't under the rule of a borderline psychotic dictator with near total military control and the willingness to murder people in the streets.

At least the US has the semblance of democracy and our plutocrats are relatively peaceful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Also, the US is a permanent member of the security council, and thus would veto any military action against itself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zarquon Froods
Member Avatar
Steamaholic
[ *  *  * ]
Both are valid points. It was just a what if scenario, the main purpose was deciding if the situation in Libya is justified. It spun off into several other conversations about different ways of approaching it. I like to do them to keep myself looking at things from both perspectives instead of taking one extreme or another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Retired WerePenguins
Member Avatar
Professional Sushi Eater
[ *  *  * ]
Of course not. Anti-tax policy alone is not in the mindset of the nations that determine policy in the UN - in fact it is the opposite. There is really one criterion for the UN toppling a current government ...

What does George Soros think about the guy? Thumbs up or down?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Antarctic Kawaiians
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The Evil Smurfs,Apr 2 2011
06:56 PM
And no, I'm not saying Obama is positioning himself to be a dictator.

Neither am I, but I am saying that Obama is being recklessly irresponsible in his role as Commander in Chief. He has basically used US military power to enforce his personal view of the rightness or wrongness of the situation, not what the will of the people (through their elected representatives) have expressed. The only reason he's gotten away with it so far is that the American people, by and large, have no problem with slapping Qaddafi around.

The question is, if Obama can bomb Libya because he and his UN sycophants think it's the "right thing to do", what OTHER military messes will the US get into because of him?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SilentScope
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Cobdenia,Apr 6 2011
03:59 AM
Also, the US is a permanent member of the security council, and thus would veto any military action against itself

That is, depending on what government actually holds that seat. If the General Assembly of the UN votes to recognize a Tea Party-backed rebel government as the legitimate government of the United Sates, then the Tea Party can send in a representative to the UN and not veto military action against itself.

This is incredibly unlikely (I'd think most States would rather NOT get involved in American internal affairs), but then again, so is the concept of a renewed civil war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Palentine
Member Avatar
The thinking man's pervert
Admin
SilentScope,Apr 8 2011
02:25 AM
Cobdenia,Apr 6 2011
03:59 AM
Also, the US is a permanent member of the security council, and thus would veto any military action against itself

That is, depending on what government actually holds that seat. If the General Assembly of the UN votes to recognize a Tea Party-backed rebel government as the legitimate government of the United Sates, then the Tea Party can send in a representative to the UN and not veto military action against itself.

This is incredibly unlikely (I'd think most States would rather NOT get involved in American internal affairs), but then again, so is the concept of a renewed civil war.

A tea party backed rebel government would tell the UN to go move its HQ to Europe or some other place where its wanted. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Find themes at Zathyus Networks