From CNN:
We’re going to protect the civilians of Sirte by halting the rebel onslaught, right?
All we are saying
Is give war a chance!
I’m more or less assuming that the quote relates to a “bloody struggle” with the military forces of Ghaddafi. If you have other information, I wait with bated breath.
P.J. O’Rourke already stole that one. He also has the advantage of being somewhat witty, in a Dennis Miller/Mallard Fillmore sort of way. When he’s not too busy telling us how much smarter he was when he quit being a dope-smoking hipster and became an alcoholic.
Not quite done here, John.
It’s the only chance left to the revolutionaries, Khadafy having thus far failed to follow Mubarak’s example.
How does it feel to be both wrong and for the wrong reasons?
I never knew you were a stickler for originality.
Not done with what…?
Me? Not a scruple. Vonnegut I borrow, Wilde, I steal, Twain, I plunder. I just assumed you wouldn’t want to be seen as stooping to my level. I’m a Dad, John, I’ve no dignity left to lose.
So you’re going with the “bat the big, brown, innocent eyes” gambit? OK. Cool with that.
Well, now that you put it that way… 
You should consider that I’m not the only person on this MB who finds many of your posts so overflowing with flowery rhetoric or so cryptically terse that I often don’t know what you’re talking about.
Yeah, but they are genuinely stupid.
Blind partisan fool.
What do you think will happen to civilians in a city that is under attack? It’s time to admit that we’re not there to protect civilians; we’re there because we’ve taken sides in their civil war.
Revolution /= civil war.
Back to the hysteria, I see.
Either way, same difference. If I were calling it a revolution, you’d be insisting that it was a civil war.
How do you define the difference? The rebels are pretty much based in the east, the loyalists in the west. The rebels are being recognized by the French, at least, and apparently have enough control in their area to arrange oil sales. Looks like civil war to me. But no matter, if it pleases you, feel free to go through all my posts in this thread and substitute “revolution” for “civil war”. I don’t care.
Whether it’s a revolution or a civil war, it’s none of our business.
Do you remember that at the beginning of March, Qaddafi had the unimpeded use of the Libyan army inside his country and had absolutely ordered massacres of his citizens? That’s what we stopped, not the revolution and not its suppression, but the willful massacre of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Do you really think the rebels have either the military capability or the willful disregard to perpetrate that sort of bloodspilling on innocents, at Sirte or any other Libyan city? Do you think our intervention will lead to more bloodshed in Libya or less?
Take a deep breath and you’ll realize you do know better than that.
I.e., the rebels have succeeded in the areas where the dictator is the weakest, and are on their way into the areas where his support is still strong although weakening there too.
You repeatedly assert that without explanation. Perhaps there is no way to explain letting people get killed when you have the power to stop it. Or perhaps you lack the integrity to admit when you’ve been wrong and for the wrong reasons. Maybe it’s worth it to you to let the massacres proceed if it means you can cling to your foolish pride.
Disgusting. :rolleyes:
Doesn’t matter, xeno. Haven’t you been paying attention?
It’s. None. Of. Our. Business.
Or so we’ve been told by an expert on the situation with first-hand knowledge of the ramifications of either action or inaction on our part.
What?
Speaking of hysteria.
Then who’s next on the list? Granted that places like the Congo and Uganda and Kazakhstan would be difficult to project our air power to, we can certainly reach Syria. We can certainly reach Iran. Given your view, we should now intervene in those places. We should have intervened in Sri Lanka, or Burma, or Belfast. Why didn’t we? We could intervene in Mexico, where the drug gangs are killing hundreds of innocents every year, government is ineffectual or corrupt or both, and is a nation far more tied to our national interest than Libya is. Hell, we could intervene in Somalia!
There is nothing you can say that would convince me that you would support this action if it was Bush that was President. Nothing. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. You are supporting it only because Obama did it, and the cognitive dissonance here is worse than listening to the Bush supporters defending his action. Because I thought better of you.
I was wrong.
Blind partisan fools.
Can’t blame them for being hysterical, they were subject to the tender mercies of a Grecian Formula addict. And probably didn’t realize that his use of words like “no mercy” was just a form of Arabic post-modern irony. A real droll guy. Lot of understatement and nuance.
[QUOTE=Xeno]
…Do you think our intervention will lead to more bloodshed in Libya or less?..
[/QUOTE]
There is that one scenario, where Gaddafi comes roaring back, overwhelms resistance, and takes everything in sight. About the only way that could happen is if we, the Yerps, Nato and the UN suddenly say “Fuck this shit, what’s on TV?”.
My bet is still on the Libyan army. Its one thing to be brave and stern in the face of untrained civilians armed with Nerf balls, quite another to face the prospect of being broiled alive inside a tank. I’m betting they will re-examine their priorities, especially if the prospect arises that their checks don’t cash.
But to be ruthlessly fair, there is indeed a scenario where our intervention costs more innocent lives than it saves.
You truly are an undiscriminating moron.