Gene Frenkle Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Yeppers. Well played. Right...there's nothing wrong with rethinking your opinion and changing your mind. It's healthier than sticking to your guns no matter what. As a side not, it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action. Gadhafi kind of comes off like a big kitty here!
3rdnlng Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Right...there's nothing wrong with rethinking your opinion and changing your mind. It's healthier than sticking to your guns no matter what. As a side not, it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action. Gadhafi kind of comes off like a big kitty here! He does have a history of backing down.
RkFast Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 He does have a history of backing down. WHO????? ME? OR KQGADDAFFFHHHIIIYYYIIII
3rdnlng Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 WHO????? ME? OR KQGADDAFFFHHHIIIYYYIIII That one.
chicot Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Right...there's nothing wrong with rethinking your opinion and changing your mind. It's healthier than sticking to your guns no matter what. As a side not, it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action. Gadhafi kind of comes off like a big kitty here! You may have spoke too soon. It looks like the "cease-fire" may just have been a ruse to try and buy him enough time to finish the job. Gaddafi forces attack Benghazi
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) You may have spoke too soon. It looks like the "cease-fire" may just have been a ruse to try and buy him enough time to finish the job. Gaddafi forces attack Benghazi A despot pissing on the U.N. "strongest possible measures" language, knowing that they're weak sisters who won't ever actually do anything of consequence? Well that's never happened before.... Seriously now, can we just shut down the U.N. and turn it into low-income housing or something? Edited March 19, 2011 by UConn James
3rdnlng Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 A despot pissing on the U.N. "strongest possible measures" language, knowing that they're weak sisters who won't ever actually do anything of consequence? Well that's never happened before.... Seriously now, can we just shut down the U.N. and turn it into low-income housing or something? Maybe they could put the GZ mosque there.
RkFast Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 I dont understand why this is even an issue at all. These rebels brought the fight, not the other way around. Ghadaffyyiiii was sitting in a tent wearing a funny hat and drinking tea before this insurgency started. Last I checked, the Libyan govt is legit.
/dev/null Posted March 19, 2011 Author Posted March 19, 2011 And so it begins http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/French_planes_fly_over_Libya%20_Gaddafi_hits_Benghazi.html?cid=29611886
RkFast Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) So basically what we have learned is that according to the UN, a legitimate, recognized goverment has no recourse against a violent uprising within its own borders. Nice precedent, that. Edited March 19, 2011 by RkFast
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html?partner=rss&emc=rss Only providing the link because that is a spectacular picture.
Chef Jim Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 http://www.nytimes.c...ner=rss&emc=rss Only providing the link because that is a spectacular picture.
GG Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 So basically what we have learned is that according to the UN, a legitimate, recognized goverment has no recourse against a violent uprising within its own borders. Nice precedent, that. Actually theres ample precedent of UN stepping in between "legitimate" governments and rebels to prevent wanton loss of life, especially in asymmetric battles.
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 http://www.cnbc.com/id/42164139 Well... so much for connor/Frenkle/etc.'s 'At least Obama won't drag us into war with another country!'
RkFast Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 And here we go... In Washington, Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney told reporters the cruise missiles were fired from several American destroyers and submarines and one British sub. He said they hit more than 20 air defense sites along the Mediterranean coast, many in the western half of the country that is Gadhafi's stronghold. The U.S. vessels involved in launching the Tomahawks were two destroyers — USS Barry and USS Stout — and three submarines — USS Providence, USS Scranton and USS Florida. One British sub, the Westminster, also launched missiles.
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Yeah...they changed it. Should've known better than to trust the Times' site.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Well... so much for connor/Frenkle/etc.'s 'At least Obama won't drag us into war with another country!' Wow, you're going all connor on me 3rdnlng? Never mind, that's doing 3rdnlng a disservice. Let's review: "As a side not(e), it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action." Reading comprehension is HARD. I understand that some people struggle with simple tasks.
UConn James Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Wow, you're going all connor on me 3rdnlng? Never mind, that's doing 3rdnlng a disservice. Let's review: "As a side not(e), it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action." Reading comprehension is HARD. I understand that some people struggle with simple tasks. That was a comment based on previous BUSHBAD postings. Edited March 20, 2011 by UConn James
Recommended Posts