Muammar al-Qaddafi calls the air strikes 'acts of terrorism

Muammar al-Qaddafi calls the air strikes 'acts of terrorism

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • No

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • Total voters
    10
but according to libs like nigeltunnelvision and dunceler....this is nothing like iraq. boots on the ground is the greatest sin according to those two libs. though to be fair, nigel is against the libya action as well as iraq, so unlike other libs, he is consistent.

Heaven forbid that you just acknowledge that the present actions in Libya are different in degree and kind from the actions in Iraq in 2003. It is not really controversial.


someone made a good point the other day in comparing iraq and libya....with iraq, bush did have authorization from congress and he consulted with congress. obama did not consult with congress from what i've seen and he certaintly doesn't have authorization.

Obama has acted in accordance with the War Powers Resolution. You can quibble with what "consult" means and to what extent consultation was practicable under the circumstances, but its apparent that consultation does not require authorization as some would claim. Moreover, Obama has sent the 48 hours report required by the WPR.
 
By the way, what the fuck is up with this poll question? Basically, Crawfish is asking whether we think the United States is deliberately targeting civilians. Nice.
 
By the way, what the fuck is up with this poll question? Basically, Crawfish is asking whether we think the United States is deliberately targeting civilians. Nice.

Where is SR with a good, old fashioned "why does Yurt hate America so much" when you need him?
 
Funny now that Obama has used his war powers act Liberals, for the most part, are silent. This is NO DIFFERENT from what G.H.W. Bush did to defend Kuwait, nor is it different from what GW Bush did in Iraq. Afghanistan was really the only ligitimate use of Military power in the last Decade. It was from there that the attack was planned and directed. It was the Taliban that protected those that planned and directed the attack. Iraq was a waste of resources. Libya is probably also. It will probably result in the creation of another Islamic state of Jihadists.

Except it is different, unless you're of the view that the UN is irrelevant. And if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Except it is different, unless you're of the view that the UN is irrelevant. And if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

toe licker....you are wrong as usual. though i am not surprised that you and onceler continue this obsession about me joking about onceler's support of the union. by golly....zappa says you can't do that, because you and onceler aren't mind readers.

so take up your obsession with zappa. perhaps you two, or three if you include the mental midget, can work it out.
 
Except it is different, unless you're of the view that the UN is irrelevant. And if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

i want to clarify this:

you believe such military action is different, because the UN approves it.

so what you're saying is.....you still believe such action is wrong, but....maybe less wrong than acting without the UN? note the question mark nigel, so we don't have to play stupid semantic games. why do you feel it is different solely because the UN gives approval? that doesn't change a single thing about our country engaging in military conflict. not a single thing. unless of course, you want the UN to supersede the US constitution.
 
"Decision" is probably a better word than "action." Iraq was definitely a unilateral decision.

unreal....so libya is not an action....rather a "decision"

according to you - over a hundred missiles is just a decision. warplanes flying over sovereign air space, is just a decision. but....put boots on the ground....now we have an illegal invasion. but bombs are cool and are not illegal.

:rolleyes:
 
But I wasn't talking to you, Crawfish. Do you see the post that I quoted? Are you Socrtease?

why are you so sad toe licker? you could have just stayed with the topic instead of veering off into your obsession about crawfish.

if nannyzappa was here...he would tell you to get back in line and get the with the thread. no divergence. none. period. so, if you really want to talk about crawfish, i suggest you start a new thread or nannyzappa will rain hellfire upon you.
 
But that's your name, Crawfish. Sure, it isn't as clever as "nannzappa" or "toe licker" or "duncler" or "nigeltunnelvision" or your gems, but I do the best with my limited mental abilities.
 
But that's your name, Crawfish. Sure, it isn't as clever as "nannzappa" or "toe licker" or "duncler" or "nigeltunnelvision" or your gems, but I do the best with my limited mental abilities.

why do you love crawfish so much, that you have to continually call me that? nannyzappa has declared that you and onceler are LIARS if you try and tell me what i meant to say. perhaps your love of crawfish has clouded your reasoning. i don't care though...take it up with nannyzappa. keep it in PM if you will....i really don't want to see your falling out.

thanks.
 
Buoyed by strikes, Libya rebels try to advance


Coalition forces bombarded Libya for a third straight night Monday, targeting the air defenses and forces of Libyan ruler Moammar Ghadafi, stopping his advances and handing some momentum back to the rebels, who were on the verge of defeat just last week.

But the rebellion's more organized military units were still not ready, and the opposition disarray underscored U.S. warnings that a long stalemate could emerge.

The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries has unquestionably rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from the immediate threat they faced only days ago of being crushed under a powerful advance by Gadhafi's forces. The first round of airstrikes smashed a column of regime tanks that had been moving on the rebel capital of Benghazi in the east.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...19/international/i035933D56.DTL#ixzz1HHl705NL
 
Back
Top