Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

USA's Liberation of Libya has begun.


  • Please log in to reply
469 replies to this topic

#51 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:47 PM

:coffee:

#52 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:51 PM

ill smack that cup right outta ur hand pussy:joker:
:lol:

#53 Royal

Royal
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,362 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:54 PM

I wouldnt be surprised if they build statues of Obama in Libya once the liberation is over.

#54 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:57 PM

ill smack that cup right outta ur hand pussy:joker:
:lol:


Yeah, yeah. Limp your ass over here and give it a whirl, brehm. :coffee:

#55 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 March 2011 - 10:58 PM

Yeah, yeah. Limp your ass over here and give it a whirl, brehm. :coffee:


till my dieing breath i are dangerous kitteh

#56 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:01 PM

http://tonto.eia.doe...&s=MCREXUS1&f=M

#57 Royal

Royal
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,362 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:04 PM

http://tonto.eia.doe...&s=MCREXUS1&f=M



dont open TASB's thread, he's posted a virus again.

#58 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:06 PM

yeah, no.

#59 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:17 PM

till my dieing breath i are dangerous kitteh


:rolling:

#60 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,982 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:20 PM

...and in other news:


http://t0.gstatic.co...JXe4ZVUmWLw&t=1

Having invaded most of the world's oil bearing nations, and to divert attention from their real agenda, the U.S. pleads with UN officials to allow the U.S to invade the U.S. claiming the U.S. treatment of it's people is deplorable...and claims it has nothing to do with the U.S. cache of oil.

his name is nutty...would you look at that...that squirrel can water ski

:funny1:

#61 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:32 PM

Yes, the United States is all about "spreading democracy". Definitely, breh. :lol:

#62 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,982 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:42 PM

Yes, the United States is all about "spreading democracy". Definitely, breh. :lol:


and bullets:funny1:

#63 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:51 PM

and bullets:funny1:


I'm glad you enjoy killing people. :rolleyes:

#64 Jwheelz

Jwheelz
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,841 posts
  • LocationNutmeg State

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:07 AM

Posted Image
What is the most alarming part of this chart to you?



That whole thought, along with the "war on terror" are both diversions.


I think nobody pointed out the most obviously alarming part of the chart... the fact that the entire curve trends steeply downward starting... now

I'm not clear what the source of that chart is though...

#65 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:16 AM

I think nobody pointed out the most obviously alarming part of the chart... the fact that the entire curve trends steeply downward starting... now

I'm not clear what the source of that chart is though...


Don't worry about it though.....The US exports more than most of those countries. :lol:

#66 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,982 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:16 AM

I'm glad you enjoy killing people. :rolleyes:


owwwwwa...(((((TASB)))))...I don't enjoy killing people! I'm not even happy we're at war.

seriously though,

I just believe we (the U.S.) are trying to do the right thing. I love this country, and was even willing to risk my life for it!

war isn't pretty and it certainly ain't fun, and I feel for everyone who has lost anyone during such.

you have the right to distrust this country (Gov't)...I should have the equal right to trust it!

#67 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:23 AM

Our President is growing up right in front of our eyes! Way to go Mr. President :thumpup:


Set up a democracy...hopefully find a group of Libyian folks that are willing to run a country giving everyone the same rights (in theory) and have the UN monitor them...and hopefully the Kaddafy faithful won't run interference in the process.


Indeed...I think it could actually work in Libya (I think it can eventually work in Iraq...Afghanistan is a different animal but perhaps in time or set em up as 4 or 5 countries... :dunno:) and at a rather fast pace to boot :ura1:


owwwwwa...(((((TASB)))))...I don't enjoy killing people! I'm not even happy we're at war.

seriously though,

I just believe we (the U.S.) are trying to do the right thing. I love this country, and was even willing to risk my life for it!

war isn't pretty and it certainly ain't fun, and I feel for everyone who has lost anyone during such.

you have the right to distrust this country (Gov't)...I should have the equal right to trust it!


Really? From your postings it appears as though you're pretty happy about it....

And yes, go ahead and trust your govt. like a good sheeple. You have every right to do so....regardless of how irresponsible that may be. :wink:

#68 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,982 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:46 AM

Pres growing up...making tough decisions that may cost him an election for what he deems for the greater good over votes.


Yes.. happy that countries will be free from tyranny, people allowed to speak their minds even if it's against the gov't, practice whatever religion they want, women being able to read, hold jobs, go out in public showing their face if they choose, and not get tortured, jailed or killed for it ...what a terrible individual am I

We are where we are...bitchin' about ain't gonna do anything...and I'm hoping good comes of all this...again,I'm a terrible person

#69 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:08 AM

Yeah, it appears we did a real good job turning Iraq into a place free of tyranny, killings, freedom of religion, no torture... etc....etc...etc.....
It doesn't work. It never has, it never will.....

http://www.brecorder...in-baghdad.html

http://en.aswatalira...e&id=141541&l=1

http://baltimorechro...10Lendman.shtml

#70 HABIT

HABIT
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:17 AM

The conflict between the West and radical Islam or really the conflict between democracy and theocracy. Democracy promotes gender equality, freedom of speech, and religion while Islam does not. Islamists as with communists and fascists, (hmm didn't the US go to war against Communism?) believe that they alone hold the truth, that they are endowed with a universal mission, and that their mission culminates in the destruction of "rule of the people" -- democracy -- wherever and whenever it appears.

In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad. Scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive.

______

I didn't write the above but do a lot of reading Muslims are taught. Islam is one of the very few religions that refuse to UPDATE themselves to modern times. Because of this they view the West as the enemy for trying to force change onto them. Western views of the Islamic Law as being cruel, "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer" ~William Montgomery Watt~

Wars hundreds of years ago were fought over religion, yet in today's Politically correct atmosphere, we can not just come out and say were fighting against religion, being a democracy it would be against what we are fighting for, freedom of religion. Under Islamic law, Women are not considered equal, you can't change religion half way through your life, homosexual relations between consenting adults is a crime, alcohol is a no-no. The USA claims to not be a Christian state yet we swear on a bible, Jesus pays for our sins, Muslims must pay for their own sins. According to the Quran, one of the foods explicitly forbidden is blood, yet as I said above Christians drink the blood of Christ.

"And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors."

- Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:190)

Nothing is to be harmed unless the person or thing is actively engaged in an assault against Muslims. Loosely anyone who touches down on Muslim land to attack and/or destroy could be and should be destroyed, of course in the name of ALLAH.

#71 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,110 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:21 PM

Let France, China, Russia and EU get their fucking hands dirty for a change. :rolleyes:


China and Russia are pro-Gadhafi.... AKA on the other side of the equation...

:coffee:

There were no rebel forces, no democracy movement, no civilians being slaughtered in Iraq.
The US did not lead this decision.
And as far as I know, no obvious at the time big lies to get us in (maybe someone else who was following closely can correct me on these?).

As I understand it the French think this is a lot more like Rwanda than Iraq. Others think it's more like Egypt.


The only similarity I see is oilfields?
:dunno:



x2

The US didn't start this. France did. Would've been in poor taste for the US not to help. Genocide is not good, yah?

#72 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:28 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T1


.............U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon -- who met with Moussa other world leaders to discuss Libya on Saturday -- said support from Arab leaders was key to the Security Council's decision.

"The strong recommendation by the league of Arab states to take decisive measures -- including the establishment of a no-fly zone -- figured prominently in the adoption of the Security Council resolution," Ban told reporters in Egypt on Monday. "This decisive measure is meant to protect the civilian population, who are being killed by Col. Gadhafi and his regime."

Ban was briefly mobbed by demonstrators chanting "Down with USA!" in Cairo, his spokesman Khawla Mattar said, adding that it was "not a serious incident."

The Libyan government has claimed that 48 people, mostly women, children and clerics, have died in allied attacks.

However, Gortney, the U.S. vice admiral, said, "We have no indication of any civilian casualties."

And France -- which conducted the first strike in Libya on Saturday when fighter jets fired at a military vehicle -- also disputed claims of civilian deaths.

"There is no information of killed civilians recorded by the French command," French government spokesman Francois Baroin said Monday on the French TV channel Canal+. "We must be cautious of communication campaigns and propaganda."

Ahmed Gebreel, a member of the Libyan opposition, told CNN the Gadhafi government collected bodies of people killed in fighting in the past week and displayed them over the weekend, trying to show they were killed by coalition airstrikes.

The British Ministry of Defence said it halted a mission to attack a target in Libya after information surfaced about civilians in the area.

"As the RAF GR4 Tornados moved into the area, further information came to light that identified a number of civilians within the intended target area," the ministry said in a statement Monday. "As a result the decision was taken not to launch weapons. This decision underlines the UK's commitment to the protection of civilians."

In the coming days, U.S. officials said they plan to hand over operational control of the military mission. The coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain.

"One of the things that was very much on (U.S. President Barack Obama's) mind is the importance of a meaningful coalition, meaning other countries making serious military contributions so the United States isn't carrying the preeminent responsibility for an indefinite period of time," Gates said.

As of Sunday night, the United States and British military had fired a total of 124 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defense sites, Gortney said.



Glad to see that we aren't planning an occupation on this one.

#73 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:28 PM

China and Russia are pro-Gadhafi.... AKA on the other side of the equation...

:coffee:




x2

The US didn't start this. France did. Would've been in poor taste for the US not to help. Genocide is not good, yah?


AKA "on the other side of the equation"?

You mean holding a neutral position?

#74 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:32 PM

are you still pipin away in here?

#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:34 PM

Don't you have limping to do? :huh:

#76 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:38 PM

im finished for now...i limped outside to smoke a butt...limped to the fridge for a glass of water...then limped to the couch to bother you:funny1:

#77 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:40 PM

Nice wook, Capt_Moran. Nice wook. :wink:

#78 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:42 PM

:wook::carla:

#79 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,110 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:08 PM

AKA "on the other side of the equation"?

You mean holding a neutral position?


No. They're against UN resolution 1973. That's not neutral.

#80 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:11 PM

Wrong. They abstained, they did not oppose.

#81 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:11 PM

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Barack Obama, non-emperor,Senator version, aka the liar i voted for


:joker:

#82 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:14 PM

Although I did just read that they critiqued the military action by the west "harshly".

#83 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:15 PM

more american bombs killing muslims...how many countries did Germany invade before WE entered WW2, and then how many more do we have to enter before other nations turn on US.


habit making sense:shocked:

#84 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,623 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:16 PM

Posted Image
What is the most alarming part of this chart to you?



That whole thought, along with the "war on terror" are both diversions.



H. Ross Perot'd
Posted Image

#85 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:17 PM

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Barack Obama, non-emperor,Senator version, aka the liar i voted for


:joker:


I believe the Patriot Act allows him to be the decider....

#86 Speckta

Speckta
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,110 posts
  • LocationQueens, NY

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:23 PM

They abstained on the vote, but were vocal before hand about their thoughts that the rest of the world should leave Libya the hell alone because it was a civil war, thus not anybody else's business.

#87 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:25 PM

Ok...so they abstained. They did not oppose. Either way, if i was a country and part of the U.N, i would also have abstained.

#88 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:30 PM

They hate us because we bomb them, says Libertarian Chair

WASHINGTON - Giving little thought to the lessons of history, President Obama has begun attacking Libya with the full support of virtually every member of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"President Obama's decision to order military attacks on Libya is only surprising to those who actually think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. He has now ordered bombing strikes in six different countries, adding Libya to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

"While the justifications vary in each case, the disturbing common thread is that these are all predominantly Muslim countries. And the goodwill expressed by Arab people about Obama in opinion polls early in his administration has completely vanished: in the most recent Zogby survey, 85% expressed an unfavorable opinion toward the United States, eclipsing the 83% negative opinion in the final year of the Bush administration.

"Libyan President Muammar Gadaffi is no friend of liberty, but the military involvement of the United States in the rebellion against him threatens to undermine the credibility of the resistance to his rule and turn him into a hero. As news of both actual and rumored killings of innocent civilians by American bombs spreads throughout the Arab world, the hatred which spawned the 9/11 murderers will continue to grow. Finally, what if Gadaffi still manages to defeat the rebels? Faced with the choice of losing face or upping the ante with an escalation of military involvement, this could turn into yet another disastrous campaign. And as Steve Chapman put it in an article in Reason magazine, 'Most of the people endorsing an attack know less about Libya than they do about playing the oboe.' When will we ever learn?

"Libertarians advocate the foreign policy eloquently described by Thomas Jefferson at his inauguration: 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.' Just as the Founding Fathers expressed admiration for the 'Swiss Model' of armed neutrality that has managed to keep Switzerland out of the vicious wars of Europe for hundreds of years, we should embrace the idea that the purpose of an American military is the defense of American soil, period. As Senator Barack Obama said in criticizing the Bush administration, 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'

"The Constitution of the United States requires an explicit Declaration of War in order for this country to engage in hostilities with foreign nations. Obama, after dithering for two weeks, has joined the list of presidents who chose to launch wars on their personal say-so in direct contravention of the Constitution.

"I don't know how many times we have to endure administrations, both Republican and Democratic, who shoot first and ask questions later. Probably for as long as we continue to elect Republicans and Democrats to office."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.


http://www.lp.org/ne...bertarian-chair

#89 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:33 PM

President Obama's decision to order military attacks on Libya is only surprising to those who actually think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.


Even more to the point. It should only be surprising to those who believe that the country is actually run by the puppet at the podium.

#90 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:45 PM

Even more to the point. It should only be surprising to those who believe that the country is actually run by the puppet at the podium.


yeah well i'd love to hear that from obama if he really believes ANYTHING he campaigned on

#91 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:08 PM



#92 HABIT

HABIT
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:09 PM

habit making sense:shocked:


yea and hell froze over... literally.. yesterday 70 degrees today I walk outside to snow on the ground.. :rotf:

#93 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:10 PM

yeah well i'd love to hear that from obama if he really believes ANYTHING he campaigned on


:lol:

Obrahmas erect veggie'd

#94 Tainted703

Tainted703
  • VibeTribe
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:12 AM

************BIG OIL EXPORT GRAPH**************

What is the most alarming part of this chart to you?



That whole thought, along with the "war on terror" are both diversions.


Look at the dates corresponding to the spikes in oil usage. They correspond with wars we've waged. It takes a shit load more oil to mobilize tanks, fighter jets, the factories chugging out missiles, transporting troops.

At the end of the day, all we've done is take out Qadafi's military resources. It's been said over and over that U.N. coalition troops will not step foot into Libya.

I understand the anti-war sentiment, what I don't understand is sitting back and watching people exercising their human-right to free speech get bombed, shot, and tortured and justifying it with "It's a civil war, not our problem."

Like I said before, where does the financial incentive start? Libya only has 2% of the worlds oil export capabilities. The amount of oil it would take to mobilize troops and carriers and tanks to get control of said oil, for the sake of import (because remember, we aren't just plundering, capitalism always wins out, we're still going to be buying that oil) It just doesn't add up.

I'll say it again, if we were going to invade a country for oil, wouldn't it be a country that actually had a little more oil? Ignoring the whole dictator bombing his own people thing which I'd like to see someone who's against the limited military action address directly.

edit: And to the person who brought up Rwanda. Just because we failed to take action in that situation does not make it right by any means.
"The US was reluctant to get involved in the "local conflict" in Rwanda and refused to label the killings as "genocide". Then-president Bill Clinton later publicly regretted that decision in a Frontline television interview. Five years later, Clinton stated that he believed that if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved."

The United States isn't the keepers of the world and we do have our own problems to worry about, but the Libyan government is murdering it's own people. We are the largest economy in the world and we have the largest military in the world. Sending a few bombers to help out the other countries involved is not wrong. Shit, CANADA has sent fighter jets over there. Who even knew Canada had a military? They certainly aren't invading for oil.

#95 zomblin_jones

zomblin_jones
  • VibeTribe
  • 171 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:56 AM

edit: And to the person who brought up Rwanda. Just because we failed to take action in that situation does not make it right by any means.
"The US was reluctant to get involved in the "local conflict" in Rwanda and refused to label the killings as "genocide". Then-president Bill Clinton later publicly regretted that decision in a Frontline television interview. Five years later, Clinton stated that he believed that if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved."

The United States isn't the keepers of the world and we do have our own problems to worry about, but the Libyan government is murdering it's own people. We are the largest economy in the world and we have the largest military in the world. Sending a few bombers to help out the other countries involved is not wrong. Shit, CANADA has sent fighter jets over there. Who even knew Canada had a military? They certainly aren't invading for oil.


just because you don't think that the us is being reluctant against getting involved now doesn't mean it never has been. either way, that's rwanda, so it's a different story entirely. and just because bill clinton said he regretted not taking action doesn't change what happened so it's irrelevant as far as history is concerned. i think the point of the matter isn't just about "sending in a few bombers," it's everything that comes with it. this whole this is turning a civil conflict into a global affair. and what's going to happen when it's over? iraq all over again.

#96 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:07 PM

My point in bringing up Rwanda is based on humanitarian effort. That is what Libya is about. Why didnt anyone give a shit (and not just the US) about Rwanda, or Darfur then? Those were atrocious genocides and we turned a blind eye....what makes Libya so special if this is about human rights??

#97 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:44 PM

i can't see how bombs that blow shit up indescriminately from above can be used to protect civilians...but there will conveniently be a lot to rebuild afterwards, which is where the nationbuilding vultures will come in...protecting civilians has always been a convenient excuse and never an intention of virtue...make no mistake, money will be made

and hey, europe don't want those damn dirty muslim refugees either now do they

#98 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,449 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:46 PM

i can't see how bombs that blow shit up indescriminately from above can be used to protect civilians...but there will conveniently be a lot to rebuild afterwards, which is where the nationbuilding vultures will come in...protecting civilians has always been a convenient excuse and never an intention of virtue...make no mistake, money will be made

and hey, europe don't want those damn dirty muslim refugees either now do they


Haliburton'd.

Yup. Same as it ever was.....

#99 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:53 PM

My point in bringing up Rwanda is based on humanitarian effort. That is what Libya is about. Why didnt anyone give a shit (and not just the US) about Rwanda, or Darfur then? Those were atrocious genocides and we turned a blind eye....what makes Libya so special if this is about human rights??

The argument made is that this is like Rwanda. That they were shooting at protesters from above, etc. They'd say that imminent civilian massacres made action necessary, and that attacks on Libyan military infrastructure would slow or stop that.

#100 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:06 PM

Yet we still hear nothing on who these rebels, that we are protecting, are. Someone is calling the shots, who?????