GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Posted March 18, 2011 Libya: Obama tells Gaddafi to withdraw or face UN-backed air strikes - He said this meant: • All attacks against civilians must stop. • Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on the rebel stronghold Benghazi, and pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya. • Gaddafi must establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. • Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. "Let me be clear: these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action." - 3 weeks ago a nationwide uprising happened in Libya overcoming all traditional tribal rivalries and had the people of Libya speaking with a single voice for Ghaddafi to leave... Today that uprising has been reduced to a single tribe of disidents clinging to one city and a small region of Libya by Ghaddafi military forces supplemented mercenaries and segments of the Libyan people "loyal" to Ghaddafi... Today, HOW will the UN/International community/US-GB-France/etc. ENFORCE anything Obama or any other leaders say? How can they remove Ghaddafi from power? I think it's already too late... While the UNSC resolution may prevent the immediate slaughter of the people entrenched in Benghazi and a small surrounding area and perhaps even allow aid to desperate and embattled "forces" opposed to Ghaddafi, any sort of "long term" solution in Libya died weeks ago... IMHO of course... Kinda reminds me of the "Northern Alliance" vs Taliban situation in Afghanistan circa '01-'02... Just Sayin' Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) ...3 weeks ago a nationwide uprising happened in Libya overcoming all traditional tribal rivalries and had the people of Libya speaking with a single voice for Ghaddafi to leave... Today that uprising has been reduced to a single tribe of disidents clinging to one city and a small region of Libya by Ghaddafi military forces supplemented mercenaries and segments of the Libyan people "loyal" to Ghaddafi... Today, HOW will the UN/International community/US-GB-France/etc. ENFORCE anything Obama or any other leaders say? How can they remove Ghaddafi from power? I think it's already too late... Removal of Ghaddafi is not the purpose of the UNSC resolution as stated, though it may be a desired outcome. If the "rebels" can't get organized and win over their countrymen, why would Ghaddafi go anywhere? This is just more pressure, and Ghaddafi is going to hang tough. As for any similarity to A-stan, that is just more wishful thinking. Military action against Libyan forces is not something that comes together in days, and some Libyans have stated that they would rather die at the hands of Ghaddafi than let "foreign invaders" intervene in Libya. Edited March 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 Removal of Ghaddafi is not the purpose of the UNSC resolution as stated, though it may be a desired outcome. If the "rebels" can't get organized and win over their countrymen, why would Ghaddafi go anywhere? This is just more pressure, and Ghaddafi is going to hang tough. As for any similarity to A-stan, that is just more wishful thinking. Military action against Libyan forces is not something that comes together in days, and some Libyans have stated that they would rather die at the hands of Ghaddafi than let "foreign invaders" intervene in Libya. You're entitled to your opinion... So Ghaddafi wins once again... The Bush Legacy has born it's fruit... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 You're entitled to your opinion... So Ghaddafi wins once again... The Bush Legacy has born it's fruit... Looks more like the Martin Legacy to me...and I have pictures to prove it! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 Looks more like the Martin Legacy to me...and I have pictures to prove it! Perhaps even the United Nations legacy. The legitimacy they bestowed on Ghadaffi when they gave Libya a seat on the UN Human Rights council is priceless. Quote
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 The Bush Legacy continues > Gaddafi defies West and pushes forces into Benghazi REBEL CITY DOUBTS WEST - Benghazi residents were angry at the West's delay. "Europe and America have sold us out. We have been hearing bombing all night, and they have been doing nothing. Why? we have no one to help us but God," said Hassan Marouf, 58, standing outside the door of his house in Benghazi. "Us men are not afraid to die, but I have women and children inside and they are crying and in tears. Help us." - Long a student of Sun Tzu Gaddafi, as he long ago outlined in his Green Book, continues to outsmart "western civilization" and is now proving that, thanks to none other than George W. Bush, that the "west" is little more than meaningless rhetoric when it comes to fighting terrorists of any stripe... Never before have ruthless Dictators, whether US backed or not, been more empowered... There is no such thing as a "war on terror", there never was, as Bush Jr. proved conclusively back when > Muammar al-Gaddafi : Bad Policy decisions by US and UK - Over the past 20 years Muammar al-Gaddafi has not changed. The only thing that has changed is how he plays the international political game. George Bush and Tony Blair have very bad reputations in their own countries and they are just about to get worse. In the recent uprising in Libya, all the skeletons that George Bush and Tony Blair put into the Libyan closet are now coming out. The stream of horrible decisions to forgive past offenses of Muammar al-Gaddafi and to grant him membership in the interntational community of trading nations is now making its way to global nightly newscasts. To learn just how bad these decisions were, first take a look at the resume of Muammar al-Gaddafi concerning terrorism and International crimes. - As the Libyan farce plays out, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and other muslim countries, on BOTH SIDES of the "conflicts" watch... What will they see? What will terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, world wide, learn from the Bush Legacy when it comes to making decisions involving very urgent tough choices? What real "power" do the UN and/or NATO really have if they are ignored? What will this mean for the futures of Afghanistan and Iraq? How will the Bush Legacy now be interpreted in places like North Korea and Iran? Obama learned this lesson the hard way, although it's always been there since George W. Bush made the fateful decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to go after INDIVIDUALS and not regimes or countries; Damned if you do, damned if you don't, is exactly the forseeable and expected outcome... However Libya turns out in the long run... Whether Gaddafi lives or dies... The "bad guys", just as they did on 9/11 2001, have won again... Remember that as you watch the world's economies... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 - Benghazi residents were angry at the West's delay. "Europe and America have sold us out. Interesting...no mention of Canada! Paul Martin must still be remembered for his warm embrace of Ghaddafi! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 It's a shame. I had thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was a thing of the past. Apparently it's still afflicting many people. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 It's a shame. I had thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was a thing of the past. Apparently it's still afflicting many people. They miss him...life was simpler for them back then. "WE HATE BUSH" only requires three words and very little thought. That Obama hasn't closed 'Gitmo and is still bombing people only confuses them more! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 Interesting...no mention of Canada! Paul Martin must still be remembered for his warm embrace of Ghaddafi! Did I put this thread in the wrong category, I better check... Nope, United States Politics, right category... I'm surprised though that you thought Martin had as much power as George W, Bush... I would have thought that you of all people would know better... In fact, seeing it's you, let me check > Muammar al-Gaddafi : Bad Policy decisions by US and UK < nope no mention of Martin at all... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 Did I put this thread in the wrong category, I better check... Nope, United States Politics, right category... Nope....Paul Martin, former Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Canadian Liberal Party also lobbied President George Bush hard for sweet oil services contracts AFTER the invasion of Iraq was over. Hmmmm...I see a trend here. I'm surprised though that you thought Martin had as much power as George W, Bush... I would have thought that you of all people would know better... In fact, seeing it's you, let me check > Surely your own prime minister deserves a "legacy" of his own. Rise above the urge to live as an American wannabe, wishing for American policy to go your way. Have some dignity for krisakes! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 Have some dignity for krisakes! Read it and try to understand it; that way you'll get some dignity for krisakes... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=641608 You're smart enough to know that playing ostridge like you're doing doesn't make facts go away... If in doubt read my sig line... You can argue with the points I made; but you can't change the past or the present, nor in some cases like being "damned if you do and damned if you don't" because of what GWB did, even the future... And that my friend, Martin didn't have a thing to do with... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 You're smart... Yes...I am smart! In fact, I am a smart ass. You can argue with the points I made; but you can't change the past or the present, nor in some cases like being "damned if you do and damned if you don't" because of what GWB did, even the future... Of course I can argue....eight years after Iraq we now have Europeans attacking Arab dictators without American prodding. That is a win-win in my book. Bush was right after all. And that my friend, Martin didn't have a thing to do with... So you are saying that Canadian policies are irrelevant? That's even worse than damned if you do - damned if you don't. That's more like...nobody gives a damn what you do....pathetic. Tell me you don't believe that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 Yes...I am smart! In fact, I am a smart ass. OK, since you say so, your smarts are in your ass... I can accept that, especially regarding this thread... Of course I can argue... That is a win-win in my book. Maybe it would help is you quit sitting on you smarts... Just sayin' Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 OK, since you say so, your smarts are in your ass... I can accept that, especially regarding this thread... Maybe it would help is you quit sitting on you smarts... Just sayin' That's OK by me...let's summarize: 1) Gulf War I led by the USA (UN onboard) 2) Iraq containment led by the USA (UN kinda onboard) 3) Kosovo led by the USA in 1999 (don't need no steenkin' UN) 4) Afghanistan (NATO and UN join the party together!) 5) Iraq invasion led by the USA (don't need no steenkin UN again) 6) Libyan Cival War (UN finally gets it..Yay!) 7) George Bush adds another display to his presidential library...all is good. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) That's OK by me...let's summarize: OK, lets... 1) Gulf War I led by the USA (UN onboard) Correct... 1.5) Saddam Defeated in Kuwait... NATO allies +, including Canada, (thousands of captured Iraqis urged it too) urge Bush Sr. to "finish the job" and remove Saddam Hussein... Bush Sr. and the American public have no appetite for that kind of war, nor does the UN-UNSC even though SH torches Kuwait Oil Wells as a parting shot... War over, Kuwait pays out billions to compensate "allies"... 1.75) GWB later uses "unfinished business in Iraq" as one of the reasons for Gulf War II... 2) Iraq containment led by the USA (UN kinda onboard) USA only, UN others don't care... Covered in 1.5 and 1.75... 3) Kosovo led by the USA in 1999 (don't need no steenkin' UN) Correct... Clinton learned from events post GW I... US Republicans outraged because Clinton "pulled it off" without US or Allied casualties... Ultimately a "peoples revolt" ended it and brought Slobodan Miloević before the World Court for war crimes... Yugoslavia ceases to exist as a country... 3.5) The USA "kinda" elects George Walker Bush as President... 3.75) Let's not ignore 9/11 and several other things in between completely, OK? It mattered... 4) Afghanistan (NATO and UN join the party together!) OK... The UNSC never signed off on it so in essence it was a US operation that NATO, strictly because of the sympathy for the US because of 9/11, joined the US in... Truth be told, invading a country because they didn't turn over a person, Bin Laden, wouldn't have been possible anywhere but against the generally hated Taliban the rulers of Afghanistan... 4.5) The US and allies fail to "get Bin Laden"... By backing the Northern Alliance, Afghan Rebels that opposed the Taliban, the US and their reluctant (Canada and GB being exceptions) NATO allies were thus justified as NOT being an unjustified aggresor invading a sovereign nation, which in fact is exactly what GWB and the US did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) 4.75) Being that Afghanistan was a Muslim nation, extremist anti-USA/"west" muslims and a greatly fractured assortment of muslim terrorist groups united in a common cause to bring down the USA/"west"... The first step in what has now become a no win situation for the USA/"west"... 5) Iraq invasion led by the USA (don't need no steenkin UN again) False! And you know it... A "coalition of the willing" is not representave of anything or any common entity like NATO or the UN... In fact it's the invasion of Iraq and it's consequetial fallout that now ties the hands of the United States in taking appropriate actions when needed... Like in Libya 3 weeks ago, no president can nor should take unilateral actions as GWB did by invading Iraq... Obama had his hands tied by George W. Bush, which is what I state clearly in the subject matter of this thread... ANY US President must now ensure that they are no longer seen as leading any international effort regardless of consequences... Ergo, the United States is damned if they take action and damned if they do not... Edited March 19, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) USA only, UN others don't care... Covered in 1.5 and 1.75... False...United Kingdom, America's closest ally, was onboard all the way. Clinton learned from events post GW I... US Republicans outraged because Clinton "pulled it off" without US or Allied casualties... More importantly, US confirms it is now the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, as nobody can do a damn thing about it. This lesson is not lost on George Bush. The UNSC never signed off on it so in essence it was a US operation that NATO, strictly because of the sympathy for the US because of 9/11, joined the US in... Quite false....see UN resolutions 1378, 1383, and 1386. NATO was required to respond per its defense charter. Truth be told, invading a country because they didn't turn over a person, Bin Laden, wouldn't have been possible anywhere but against the generally hated Taliban the rulers of Afghanistan... Bullshit....just ask former General Noriega of Panama. 4.5) The US and allies fail to "get Bin Laden"... I sure hope so....America wanted some payback either way. 4.75) Being that Afghanistan was a Muslim nation, extremist anti-USA/"west" muslims and a greatly fractured assortment of muslim terrorist groups united in a common cause to bring down the USA"west"... The first step in what has now become a no win situation for the USA"west"... It's really about Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Try to keep up with current events. False! And you know it... A "coalition of the willing" is not representave of anything or any common entity like NATO or the UN... It was good enough to invade Haiti and depose democratically elected Aristide. Martin's handywork again. In fact it's the invasion of Iraq and it's consequetial fallout that now ties the hands of the United States in taking appropriate actions when needed... Like in Libya 3 weeks ago, no president can nor should take unilateral actions as GWB did by invading Iraq... But he can and did....see Yemen. Obama had his hands tied by George W. Bush, which is what I state clearly in the subject matter of this thread... And you are wrong....the Americans will support their interests regardless of GWB....because it can. Edited March 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Posted March 19, 2011 False...United Kingdom, America's closest ally, was onboard all the way. If Saddam was so contained how was it possible for him to get all those WMDs Bush and Co. so liked to talk about to "justify" the invasion of Iraq? I see a lot of smoke and mirrors being used in your argument and very little fact... A well known Bush/Cheney trait... Living up to your handle? More importantly, US confirms it is now the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, as nobody can do a damn thing about it. This lesson is not lost on George Bush. OK Sonny... But watch out for phantom punches; they can take a champ down quickly... Quite false....see UN resolutions 1378, 1383, and 1386. NATO was required to respond per its defense charter. You look and tell me which ones passed and what was really in them... If you dare... But he can and did....see Yemen. But he can't... See Yemen, Bahrain, Syria for starters with more to come, then there's Iran waiting in the wings watching every move... And you are wrong....the Americans will support their interests regardless of GWB....because it can. Or can't... Too late, I'm sure he'll try, but it's still too late, Ghaddafi has already won... Just as I said at the outset... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=641446 Thanks to George W. Bush the US/"west" is already damned in the case of Libya along with whatever follows in other countries in the future... Sorry, I don't like it either, but that's just the way it is, as all of us will see soon enough... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) If Saddam was so contained how was it possible for him to get all those WMDs Bush and Co. so liked to talk about to "justify" the invasion of Iraq? Pretty simple...the extended missile ranges alone were a violation of Gulf War I surrender instruments. I see a lot of smoke and mirrors being used in your argument and very little fact... The facts are plain to see...ding dong..Saddam is dead. Nothin' you can do about that. OK Sonny... But watch out for phantom punches; they can take a champ down quickly... Still the champion after taking your best punch. You look and tell me which ones passed and what was really in them... If you dare... No...you make the claim...you do the homework to prove me wrong. But he can't... See Yemen, Bahrain, Syria for starters with more to come, then there's Iran waiting in the wings watching every move... Yemen has already been attacked...as has Iran. You just can't keep score from Canada. Thanks to George W. Bush the US/"west" is already damned in the case of Libya along with whatever follows in other countries in the future... How so....it's open season on dictators.....thanks to George W. Bush. You can thank him later. Sorry, I don't like it either, but that's just the way it is, as all of us will see soon enough... Well, I'm still waiting for Canada to show up...so save your analysis about the USA until you get into the latest fight. Edited March 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 How so....it's open season on dictators.....thanks to George W. Bush. You can thank him later. Exactly. Ghadaffi was scared shitless of George W Bush. He pretty much acquiesced to all of Bush's demands. The problem is, that the President that followed Bush doesn't scare anyone or anything. It's hardly Bush's fault for the lack of gravitas of Presidents that follow him. And to suggest so is completely disingenuous and a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome. However, I still haven't heard this CheeseWiz poster speak to the legitimacy the United Nations bestowed on Ghadaffi for placing him on the UN human rights council. But let me guess, that's also Bush's fault. Message to the United Nations. Just because an individual of a country is taken off the state terrorist list, and acknowledges WMD programs, doesn't necessarily mean they're also fit to lead on human rights. Anyone with half a brain knows that. But alas, we're talking about the United Nations. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Exactly. Ghadaffi was scared shitless of George W Bush. He pretty much acquiesced to all of Bush's demands. The problem is, that the President that followed Bush doesn't scare anyone or anything. It's hardly Bush's fault for the lack of gravitas of Presidents that follow him. And to suggest so is completely disingenuous and a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Remember when I said Obama was going to be worse than Bush? You're seeing it. But like his predecessor, when the tough get going, both Bush and Obama went golfing, or took a vacation out of country. However, I still haven't heard this CheeseWiz poster speak to the legitimacy the United Nations bestowed on Ghadaffi for placing him on the UN human rights council. But let me guess, that's also Bush's fault. Message to the United Nations. Just because an individual of a country is taken off the state terrorist list, and acknowledges WMD programs, doesn't necessarily mean they're also fit to lead on human rights. Anyone with half a brain knows that. But alas, we're talking about the United Nations. The UN is a body of convenience and only for a select few. The US, the UK, Russia and China. None of them deserve to be on a Human Rights council. The UN is a joke. We need a UN mandate and no fly zone, but some countries do not need a UN resolution or mandate to declare war and invade other countries. I thought the UN was to prevent war among countries? I though geo-political unions were supposed to stop war. The problem is in Africa, let the African Union sort it out. If Italy has a problem with Libya, let Italy sort it out. But anyways, war has been declared on Libya. There are no rules of engagement anymore, because not even the ones who supossedly support those rules, abide by them. Quote
SF/PF Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Unless Ghadaffi is STOPPED, and the US is the only one, with or without help that can do it, Bollox. There are literally dozens of countries in the world that are more than capable of stopping Ghaddafi. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Bollox. There are literally dozens of countries in the world that are more than capable of stopping Ghaddafi. Wow. Dozens, eh? So why aren't they? Quote
SF/PF Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Wow. Dozens, eh? So why aren't they? Why would they? Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Wow. Dozens, eh? So why aren't they? Because Libya is of no use to those countries that can get involved. And well, it's a civil war? Civil wars are happening in many places these days. What makes Libya and Qaddafi special? There are other civil wars where the government is killing it's citizens, but again , why Libya? Why Qaddafi? What makes his actions special when he is doing exactly what other leaders of countries going through civil unrest? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.