Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 86

Thread: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

  1. #31
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Besides a few European nations the US is on its own again if they plan to do anything about Qaddafi. Other African nations are not going to do anything even if they could. There will be no significant help from their fellow Muslims around the world. Asking the UN for help is useless. No fly zones don't stop ground offensives.

    It would not be necessary to invade Libya or even send in ground troops. A limited air campaign can cripple Qaddafi's military and put an end to his offensives. I would have no problem with blowing up his tent again in an effort to eliminate him. Chase him around the desert for awhile, he'll leave.

    The US will be criticized no matter what we do. It's time to do the right thing and start helping the Libyans’.

    People are wondering where the leader of the free world is.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  2. #32
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    If I were calling the shots I would have every captured AK-47 we have which has to be thousands and the millions of rounds of ammo and get it to the rebels fighting Qaddaffi forces.

    We could stand to build some good will there when it's over.

  3. #33
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,703
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Dave View Post
    Or not arming people like Gadafi in the first place.
    We didn't arm him, dammit! Europe did, the Russians did, the South Africans did. Or was the reply I gave you the last time you made this stupid argument not clear enough for you???

    In case your memory is unclear, I shall repost it here:

    *****
    Originally Posted by Red_Dave
    U.S. eyes arms sales to Libya | Reuters Maybe our outrage would be more constuctively applied to haulting arms sales to the authoritarian regimes in the gulf that we still support.
    Hmm, an article from two years ago stating only that the USA would "consider" Libya's request. No follow-up as to whether those sales took place. Let's see which sales did take place, shall we?

    European arms sales to Libya, in figures | Liberal Conspiracy


    ...Start with the official figures: €343 million of weapons sold in 2009 alone. The EU Observer, Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel summarize those numbers and examine what is behind them. They speculate, for example, that the €43m of German electrical exports includes jamming equipment used to block the mobile phone and GPS networks.

    Italy is the biggest exporter: they officially sold Libya €111m of weapons, but are also responsible for €80m of firearms dubiously licensed through Malta. The Corriere della Sera has found a government report detailing the Italian companies involved, which Sky News summarizes in English...

    In Britain, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reports that “the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya“. The arms-promotion wing of the UK government counts Libya as a “priority market”, and says “high-level political interventions” have supported UK weapons sales there. Last November, over half of the exhibitors at the Libyan Defence & Security Exhibition (LibDex) were UK companies...

    Belgian sales to Libya consist mostly of small arms made by FH Herstal. Le Soir is doing a fantastic job of investigating this. Last Monday they were already reporting contracts for guns. By Thursday they’d identified spent ammunition from the libyan city of Al-Bayda as manufactured by FH Herstal...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/wo.../05russia.html

    ...In its statements and actions, Russia has joined the international community in condemning the violence by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya against his citizens. But that has not stopped Russia from counting up its business losses from canceled arms sales to Libya. Russia will lose $4 billion because of the unrest in Libya and the subsequent United Nations embargo, Sergei V. Chemezov, the director of the Russian state company in charge of weapons exports, said on Friday.
    South African arms sales to Libya above board: Radebe - Times LIVE

    South African arms sales to Libya were done strictly in accordance with the law, Justice Minister and National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) chairman Jeff Radebe said on Friday... Earlier this week, David Maynier of the Democratic Alliance said the DA understood that "more than 100 sniper rifles and more than 50,000 rounds of ammunition may have been exported to Libya in late 2010".

    Other weapons systems sold appeared to include 40mm multiple grenade launchers, Hercules C130 aircraft, and armoured personnel carriers, he said.
    Spain urged to halt arms sales to Libya

    Amnesty International and other NGOs on Friday urged Spain’s government to stop arms sales to Libya and to review defence contracts with other countries in North Africa and the Middle East... Spain sold arms to Libya, including planes and equipment, worth 7.0 million euros ($9.6 million) in the first half of 2010, according to figures quoted by the group of NGOs, which also includes Oxfam and Greenpeace...
    Okay, so now what was that you were saying? Oh, that's right, you were being haughty about how the USA should halt arms sales that were apparently never made, but were considered some two years ago... but oddly, you found no scorn for European and other countries that have been happily shipping goods to Khadaffi for years, including the very fighter planes and missles that are now being used against his own people.

    Are you sure that's the tactic you want to take here, that the USA's long-ago consideration of Libya's request is the problem, and not the fact that half of Europe and all of Russia has been filling his armories for real, up to and including last year?

    That's how you want to proceed on this?
    *****

    Now pay attention because I'm going to repost this entire thing every time you spew that "the USA sold arms to Libya" crap, and I may even tatoo it on your visitor's page!

  4. #34
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,703
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    As much as I'd love to go in guns blazing and "liberate" Libya, it is involved in a civil war, so one way or the other we would be killing Libyans, including civilians. Unless NATO votes on establishing a no-fly zone, the USA dares not do anything unilaterally to interfere with the internal affairs of that country. The same nations that will criticize us for doing nothing (while they, too, do nothing) will crucify us if we do anything on our own. It would be the worst thing we could do to our foreign policy, which is already much reviled.

  5. #35
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't think we have much to worry about. Obama isn't going to do anymore than air-drop MRE's and bandaids. Then, we'll have to hear the anti-American crowd go on-n-on about we're not doing anything.
    that is true. but that doesn't make it the morally defensible course of action. We didnt' intervene in Rwanda either. Ask yourself if we are proud of that now, or if it "taught the world a lesson about the importance of American interference".

  6. #36
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    ON THE CONTRARY. Here is what the Founding fathers had to say on foreign wars:

    United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You're welcome to retract your claim whenever you want. The founders were military isolationists. They didn't believe in sending in troops to another country unless our own system of governance was in jeopardy. It was only in the late 19th century that America became open to the idea of 'spreading our ideals'. Read about, progressivism played a huge role in this.
    the Founding Fathers were anything but Isolationists; heck, they invaded Africa, Spanish America, Canada, Indian lands... they spoke of the time when Cuba would naturally become part of the American Empire, as would Canda and Mexico. Hamilton thought it might take both North and South American continents. Americans throughout our history have thought of ourselves as naturally isolationist; but when presented with the opportunity to export our (universalistic) ideology abroad, we have typically found ourselves hard-pressed to justify avoiding doing so.

    as for the Farewell Address? really? The speech that is read today as some kind of eternal non-interventionist policy statement was intended as nothing of the sort. Firstly, the notion that the Founding Fathers were somehow bereft of an expansionist and interventionist foriegn policy is ludicrous. These are the men who spoke openly of the future American Empire, who assumed naturally that at some point they would conquer and annex Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Who felt no compunction about declaring rightful American police powers over the entire Western Hemisphere. Secondly, the speech was written by Hamilton, about as open an internationalist as you are likely to find among the Founding Fathers, who saw America's future tied up in alliance with Britain; with whom she shared a political history, culture, and a hefty amount of trade. which - Thirdly - was the main point of the speech. The nation at this point in time seemed ready to tear itself apart over the issue of the French Revolution; when 'Citizen Genet' came to the US and near-called for treason, it seemed as though a good chunk of the populace was ready to oblige him, led by what were coalescing into Jefferson's Republicans. Jefferson was running around saying insane things, like he would rather see half the earth desolated than the French Revolution - with all it's accompanying bloodshed and excesses - fail. It in this environment that Washington and Hamilton produced a political document, aimed largely at defeating Jeffersons' (and his pro-France factions') bid for the Presidency upon Washington leaving office. His directions to Hamilton were "The people of this Country it would seem, will never be satisfied until they become a department of France: It shall be my business to prevent it." The Address was an attack on Republicans, and it was recieved as such. He defended Jay's Treaty, enjoined Westerners (and Southerners) who were being tempted by France to secede to ignore those entreaties. He implied that the decentralization of power sought by Republicans would lead to the same result as had happened across the water, intercine warfare from factions resuting in tyranical rule. Washington's warnings against permanent alliances and inveterate antipathy towards other nations was intended as - and read as - referring to France and Britain specifically. He suggested that the Republicans were dupes and tools of France, who had somehow managed to usurp the applause and confidence of the people, but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of America to the 'Republic' across the sea. When Washington said "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it", our only permanent alliance was with France.

    reading the statements telling us to steer clear of the French Rebellion (in notable contrast to the party which won the election of 1800, which had urged us to come into the war on France's side) as some kind of Permanent Statement Of Policy is akin to arguing that the declaration of 1942 still holds, and we are currently at war with Germany.

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    As much as I'd love to go in guns blazing and "liberate" Libya, it is involved in a civil war, so one way or the other we would be killing Libyans, including civilians. Unless NATO votes on establishing a no-fly zone, the USA dares not do anything unilaterally to interfere with the internal affairs of that country. The same nations that will criticize us for doing nothing (while they, too, do nothing) will crucify us if we do anything on our own. It would be the worst thing we could do to our foreign policy, which is already much reviled.
    NATO and the UN are both unneeded. all that needs happen at this point is that the US enforce a "no aggression" zone to create pockets of safety. in the short term, this need be an air campaign only, though perhaps some ground support in the form of deep-insert FAC teams would be worth utilizing.

  8. #38
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    This is a world issue. If the UN isn't willing to send in peacekeepers and NATO does not want to get involved, then our hands are tied (in my opinion of course). It seems we are stretched thin enough right now, along with everyone else, and the last thing we want to do is begin nation building again. I hear Gaddafi may be having trouble accessing money due to sanctions which could be very good news.
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  9. #39
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    If I were calling the shots I would have every captured AK-47 we have which has to be thousands and the millions of rounds of ammo and get it to the rebels fighting Qaddaffi forces.

    We could stand to build some good will there when it's over.
    And as soon as another beligerant takes power in Libya the US will be blamed for supporting, arming and funding him.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  10. #40
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Qaddaffi launches counterattack: "massacre" claimed by witnesses

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    This is a world issue. If the UN isn't willing to send in peacekeepers and NATO does not want to get involved, then our hands are tied (in my opinion of course). It seems we are stretched thin enough right now, along with everyone else, and the last thing we want to do is begin nation building again. I hear Gaddafi may be having trouble accessing money due to sanctions which could be very good news.
    I don't believe a limited air campaign can be considered 'nation building'. What's needed are air strikes upon Gaddafi's major ground forces and his air assets. Command, control and communication centers should be hit as well. If we know where Gaddafi is then send a missile up his a**.

    I don't know how NATO can be involved. Libya is not a member of NATO. A NATO member nation has not been attacked so I don't believe NATO has the authority under its charter to provide what would amount to a humanitarian military air campaign. I could be wrong.

    The UN isn't going to do anything.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •