What’s Arabic for “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”? 
I have not read any of your pusillaminous trolling since my last post. But this is what happens when the Free World acts from their base values. We are going to flatten the criminal Libyan regime and if you think the British people are going to be deterred from standing up for people fighting for freedom by casualties you don’t know the British.
I am not a tory but at this moment I am goddam proud that my government is doing what is right anddamn the consequences. Shame Obama has no bloody backbone and had to be shamed into doing the right thing but like Churchill said, you can always rely on the US doing the right thing, once they have exhausted all the other alternatives.
Gadaffi. We are coming for you. People yearning to be free. Sorry we are late but we’re on our way. And go France.
. . . raining down the golden shower of justice . . .
Saudi Arabia is now a member of the “Free World?” Fascinating. And how do you foresee the UK applying its “base values” to Yemen and Bahrain? Pretending to believe in a universal truth that magically only applies to one’s enemies is nothing but rank hypocrisy.
http://asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit
Libya sent more troops to fight against Americans in Iraq per capita than any other country including Saudi Arabia. why are we involved?
No, that seems to be a particularly low down misuse of language. It is not a claim that anybody ‘sent’ anybody, but that some jihadists in Iraq came from Libya. In some cases it’s even more absurd, like talking about the under-two-dozen jihadists who came from Benghazi.
You really want to base the idea of not getting involved on the idea that about 2 hundred militants could had been radical Islamists? It is more likely that they may also had followed the words of Gadaffy to go against the US.
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Africa-rejects-Iraq-war-Gaddafi-20030204
I think Baron Greenback called it right. [and thanks spark for the definition, I had not heard that term in a long time] While Churchill’s statement is true more often than not, in this case, it is not that Obama did not want to take action, but he did want be seen as leading the call for it and have the situation viewed as the projection of American power. Like someone said somewhere, what is the point of having allies if you don’t use them now and again. Letting Sarkozy take the lead (and I doubt if that was our doing, so much as allowing to it happen) was a brilliant diplomatic move.
Like I noted in the other thread, the UN has moved lightning fast compared to previous efforts. I wanted earlier action as well, but I am pleased with how it is turning out so far.
Heh. I always forget that our air power also includes a rather significant arsenal of Tomahawks. It is nice to see our tax dollars at work sometimes. I think bombing Gaddhafi directly will be impossible since he is hiding among a throng of followers. (Come out and fight like a man!!!) But if we demoralize his troops enough, that throng could do it for us.
Flap, flap away. If you cannot do everything it does not mean you must do nothing. Meanwhile we will reduce Gadaffi’s regime to craters. He’ll be killed by his own military inside a week.
Accounts suggest Obama did not want to act. It was clinton allied with the national security advisor who forced the issue. The Nsa served Bill Clinton at the time of Rwanda and it was Gadaffi’s last ‘we’re going to kill you all’ speech that forced Obama to react out of fear his own conscience and reputation would be similarly blighted.
This is from the Sunday Times so can’t link.
I can definitely see how Obama would actually want to use force as a last resort. I am certain he was hoping Gaddafi would fall without outside interference.
But he has come around, and showed the willingness to listen to Clinton and other advisers. Mucho improvement over the last guy in that office.
That is not what he means at all. I don’t know why he bothered.
Why he bothered certainly isn’t clear, especially since ‘what he meant’ was his annoyance at the fact that an American message board, populated mostly by Americans, has a focus on American issues, and how other issues relate to America.
It is not just an American issue.
But Americans like to think it is.
Nope, not true. But get in a few more renditions of “Grrr, Americans, grrr!!!” if you feel the need.
What I have posted is my experience. You can be an insulting prick all you want.
“It is not just an American issue.
But Americans like to think it is.”
Vs.
“It is not just an American issue.
But a small, non-representative sample composed of Americans who I happen to have met, like to think it is.”
(Spot the difference?)
That is utterly condescending. Do you hide behind the moderation here?
As a personal note, I just wondered something - does Qaddafi has missiles capable of reaching Israel?
I don’t think so. He might be lucky to reach Malta. If he did, I think he would be trying to use them against the ships in the Med. Have not heard of any reports along those lines.