U.S. and Allies Strike Libya - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2011, 06:36 AM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 01:44 AM
if only that slacker worked as hard as dubya
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:03 AM   #47
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,045
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
if only that slacker worked as hard as dubya
He's definitely not working as hard as Dubya did at getting days off. Pathetic!
__________________

__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:18 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Cameron is Bush in this scenario, at a very loose stretch. Actually, not at all really. There is at least some logical argument for this.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:50 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AchtungBono View Post
Absolutely......we wouldn't want him to miss a single minute of his golf game now, would we?
the US being involved, or not involved at all, will have no impact on the mans golf game. The whole golf thing is a silly obsession anyway, whether directed against Bush or Obama.

What is obvious from this thread is that there is no appetite in America for more meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. And they are right to be cautious. I think the current president may be toying with isolationism in some way, but keeps getting dragged in.
US involvement in these revolutions almost risks contaminating the outcome - which, I think is a reason why they kept Egypt at arms length during its revolt. There is still a lot of suspicion in the Middle East about American motives in these events. There is a fine line to walk.
__________________
Basstrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:53 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 01:44 PM
The countries that were out in front on No Fly Zones and whatnot were those with large strategic interests in Libya (particularly the British – who were jumping up and down about this almost literally from Day 1 – huge deals up in the air if Libya turns into a chaotic civil war state for any length of time.) Humanitarian – bullshit/whatever - it’s always strategic/economic interests.

The US have no interests in Libya, have to take a more careful and consistent line in regards to these uprisings due to their entanglement elsewhere, and of course would have been painfully aware of how raising a US flag anywhere near another military operation anywhere, but particularly in an Islamic country, has a far greater weight attached to it these days (to put it lightly.) So the sensible position is: harsh words, but no missiles. You’ve got Gates and others out there saying the idea is plain stupid.

But there’s been a series of steps/arm twisting:

- No doubt the British, French etc have been trying hard to convince them to get in on this both for military and legitimacy reasons. No doubt a part of that argument has been of the “Come on, need we remind you of our support for your adventures over the past decade?” variety. You owe us.
- Didn’t sound like that was working, but once the loyalist forces in Libya starting seriously gaining against the rebels, and Gaddafi starting talking openly about how he was going to get down on a bit of mass slaughter, the US position is probably starting to look like it might end up, in hindsight, looking a little… off colour. Awkward if Gaddafi goes through with it. This was only about a week ago and was probably where a shift began.
- The seriously rare unanimous Arab League vote on the No Fly Zone gives cover to the US flag popping up again over military action in the region.
- What more do you need? being a possible message. Obama/US are reluctantly “in”.
- But the potential for this to turn into a complete mess, both on the ground in Libya and in policy for the US within the region, is still incredibly strong. So yeah, I could totally see them wanting to play a very small part early, and then hand it all off and get out of there.

I do think there’s a good argument for intervention by someone, but there are huge risks involved with it. It could really, seriously drag. This is closer to a civil war than it is just some nutty dictator setting his military on his people. They’ve obviously got some confidence in the rebel leadership as a possible alternative, but getting them into that position will probably take more than just a few days of missile strikes. Could be a long shitfight. But hey, if the British and French think its worth it for oil or polls or whatever, then, whatever.

But for the US, this is pretty dumb. Obama has been very good in keeping a consistent public line across all of these of supporting the democratic movements and condemning any violence along the way, and has been pretty good in what levers he’s pulled or buttons he’s pressed when (publicly, and it seems privately too) in terms of ordering the regimes around, but overall, the consistent line of “But this is their thing” has been the most important part. But they’ve broken that now, and methinks it could lead to serious trouble ahead for the US.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 09:08 AM   #51
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers View Post
The countries that were out in front on No Fly Zones and whatnot were those with large strategic interests in Libya (particularly the British – who were jumping up and down about this almost literally from Day 1 – huge deals up in the air if Libya turns into a chaotic civil war state for any length of time.) Humanitarian – bullshit/whatever - it’s always strategic/economic interests.

The US have no interests in Libya, have to take a more careful and consistent line in regards to these uprisings due to their entanglement elsewhere, and of course would have been painfully aware of how raising a US flag anywhere near another military operation anywhere, but particularly in an Islamic country, has a far greater weight attached to it these days (to put it lightly.) So the sensible position is: harsh words, but no missiles. You’ve got Gates and others out there saying the idea is plain stupid.

But there’s been a series of steps/arm twisting:

- No doubt the British, French etc have been trying hard to convince them to get in on this both for military and legitimacy reasons. No doubt a part of that argument has been of the “Come on, need we remind you of our support for your adventures over the past decade?” variety. You owe us.
- Didn’t sound like that was working, but once the loyalist forces in Libya starting seriously gaining against the rebels, and Gaddafi starting talking openly about how he was going to get down on a bit of mass slaughter, the US position is probably starting to look like it might end up, in hindsight, looking a little… off colour. Awkward if Gaddafi goes through with it. This was only about a week ago and was probably where a shift began.
- The seriously rare unanimous Arab League vote on the No Fly Zone gives cover to the US flag popping up again over military action in the region.
- What more do you need? being a possible message. Obama/US are reluctantly “in”.
- But the potential for this to turn into a complete mess, both on the ground in Libya and in policy for the US within the region, is still incredibly strong. So yeah, I could totally see them wanting to play a very small part early, and then hand it all off and get out of there.

I do think there’s a good argument for intervention by someone, but there are huge risks involved with it. It could really, seriously drag. This is closer to a civil war than it is just some nutty dictator setting his military on his people. They’ve obviously got some confidence in the rebel leadership as a possible alternative, but getting them into that position will probably take more than just a few days of missile strikes. Could be a long shitfight. But hey, if the British and French think its worth it for oil or polls or whatever, then, whatever.

But for the US, this is pretty dumb. Obama has been very good in keeping a consistent public line across all of these of supporting the democratic movements and condemning any violence along the way, and has been pretty good in what levers he’s pulled or buttons he’s pressed when (publicly, and it seems privately too) in terms of ordering the regimes around, but overall, the consistent line of “But this is their thing” has been the most important part. But they’ve broken that now, and methinks it could lead to serious trouble ahead for the US.
Earnie thank you very much for clarifying some points,. You helped put that in perspective for me and I really appreciate that. Now I understand things a little better than before.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 09:24 AM   #52
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,042
Local Time: 11:44 PM
I probably don't know enough about the situation to make a comment, but I support the intervention, in spite of the huge risks involved. The US' line has been "days not weeks" in terms of their frontline involvement, but surely there's no way it'll be as simple as that...

Imagine being a Libyan civilian. No human should ever have to live through something like that. Thank god i live where I do.
__________________
cobl04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 09:30 AM   #53
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Imagine being a Libyan civilian. No human should ever have to live through something like that. Thank god i live where I do.
No doubt that the oppression in Libya was awful, but we do seem to pick our intervention based on their oil reserves.

BTW-
Would it be to much to ask for the richest Americans to cough up a billion dollars per Tomahawk missile launched?
I think it would be a nice gesture and pay for our intervention plus a little extra.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:01 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:44 AM
If we're involved there because of what he's doing to civilians then why don't we send US military to the Congo and other places where civilian women are being raped in large numbers to try to stop that?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:20 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers View Post
Cameron is Bush in this scenario, at a very loose stretch. Actually, not at all really. There is at least some logical argument for this.


but the share the lack of an endpoint, a way out.

am really, really not happy about this at all. i'm with Gates.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:44 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya - The Hill's Twitter Room



Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military's mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen:


It's only cause we're defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That's why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy

And we always follow the French's lead! Next thing you know, we'll have free health care & free college! Yay war!

We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING !

Khadaffy must've planned 9/11! #excuses

Khadaffy must've had WMD! #excusesthatwork

Khadaffy must've threatened to kill somebody's daddy! #daddywantedjeb

Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009:

May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:54 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Charles Freakin' Krauthammer:

Quote:
"I would simply say the United States is not omnipotent. If we were, we would be everywhere, and we would be consistent, and we would stop every slaughter on the planet, and we would be in the Congo right now. And why aren’t we in the Ivory Coast? Ivory Coast had an election, the dictator lost the election, he refused to accept the other side, he’s been shooting people in the streets. I mean, where are we going to go with this? I think you have to have two things in order to act. You have to have a moral justification, you’re protecting slaughter, maybe preventing a genocide. But you also have to have a strategic rationale. Otherwise, we will spend ourselves into penury, into destitution, and into very great sorrow by deploying all over the world. So I mean, it seems to me we have to be extremely hard-headed as well as idealistic about this. You have to have a moral rationale and a strategic one. If you only have one and not the other, you don’t act,"
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:58 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
If we're involved there because of what he's doing to civilians then why don't we send US military to the Congo and other places where civilian women are being raped in large numbers to try to stop that?
I'm pretty sure that the atrocities that happen to women have rarely been considered a significant reason to risk much of anything (and to be fair that's often the reaction toward the world's vulnerable in general) Women are the diplomatic and defacto trade-off.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 02:00 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonosSaint View Post
I'm pretty sure that the atrocities that happen to women have rarely been considered a significant reason to risk much of anything
That is such a sad statement-because it's true

And places like the Congo don't affect our economy I hate to think that way, but..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 02:06 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but the share the lack of an endpoint, a way out.

am really, really not happy about this at all. i'm with Gates.
Same here.

At least let's be honest about why they're all of a sudden gung ho about freedom in Libya and not in the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast.

If the French and the Italians and the Brits want Libyan oil, they should do the job themselves. What possessed Canada is incomprehensible, but then you remember that we have a man who thinks he's a King for a Prime Minister (whose government was, incidentally, found in contempt today, first time that's happened in Cdn history). Lovely.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com