No Fly zones over Libya?

HoverBoarder said:
Most of the left is not that short sighted and dim-witted. Just like most on the right are not that way.

The driving force on the left is based on producing real and positive policies, and one of the defining aspects of the Left is a strong sense of empathy. There is nothing inherently anti-Israel or anti-US in that.

There are some on the radical left (Chomsky, Anarchists, radical Communists) just as there are some on the radical right (Timothy Mcveigh, radical militias, LaRouche, etc.) who have adopted a pointless blanket anti-American and Anti-Israeli mindset without spending any time on actual solutions.

However, most people who are not on the radical realm on either side are interested in actually getting things done, even if they differ on the substance of how to do that. They realize that a blanket anti-Western, anti-Israel, or anti-US policy is ridiculously dumb and pointless.

The people who are blanket Anti-Western without taking any time to actually think about our problems has more to do with a lazy radicalism than anything else.
Click to expand...

I think I would agree with this.
 
bikerdruid said:
if you believe that mcveigh was 'pointless' in his hatred of his hatred of the american government, then you know nothing about him.
read gore vidal's perpetual war for perpetual peace

it's a fast read, and readily available online as a pdf.
Click to expand...

Great. A fan of Tim McVeigh. How come I'm not surprised?
 
HoverBoarder said:
It's absolutely valid in the sense that they are both pointlessly anti-American with no ideas to help improve our Country or the world. One through violence the other through dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Vacuous, unsubstantiated, generalizing smear.


HoverBoarder said:
A no fly zone could classify as a war because there are a lot of war-like actions that have to be taken in order to implement a no-fly zone. Although as I noted it is different than wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

In this interview, the secretary general of NATO is asked if NATO has accidentally gone to war in Libya (1.24). He replies "Definitely not, on the contrary."

We did not go into Libya to replace a despot with another. We went in under a UN mandate to protect civilians from the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians under Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that this would actually have happened? In other towns occupied by Gaddafi forces, there were no mass, indescriminate, civilian massacres.

It's the same reason we went into Kosovo, and the same reason we put pressure on Sudan and are putting sanctions on Syria. All of which would be considered "humanitarian."
Click to expand...

The "humanitarian" window-dressing for the assault on Libya has as much substance as Saddam's Yellow Cake Uranium.

The UN likes to prevent mass killings of civilians, and one of the main reasons that they have been able to do that is because of the actions of the US. If you think all of those people should have been killed, than maybe you can write a petition to the UN asking them to stop working to prevent the mass killings of civilians.
Click to expand...

Bombing and killing civilians to save them - the same sorry, story, but a price "worth paying", apparently.

Some of the "rebel" leaders were, until recently, Gadhafi's men. What makes you think they will suddenly change their behavior now that they have become insurgents in a civil war?
 
JihadJane said:
Vacuous, unsubstantiated, generalizing smear.


In this interview, the secretary general of NATO is asked if NATO has accidentally gone to war in Libya (1.24). He replies "Definitely not, on the contrary."


Do you have any evidence that this would actually have happened? In other towns occupied by Gaddafi forces, there were no mass, indescriminate, civilian massacres.

The "humanitarian" window-dressing for the assault on Libya has as much substance as Saddam's Yellow Cake Uranium.


Bombing and killing civilians to save them - the same sorry, story, but a price "worth paying", apparently.

Some of the "rebel" leaders were, until recently, Gadhafi's men. What makes you think they will suddenly change their behavior now that they have become insurgents in a civil war?
Click to expand...

All of your own opinions, I just happen to disagree with them.
 
HoverBoarder said:
All of your own opinions, I just happen to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

No, I am not the Secretary General of NATO.

Please provide supporting evidence for your assertion that the NATO military assault on Libya has prevented mass killings of civilians and that my statement about Gaddafi's men now being "rebel" leaders is just my "opinion".
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
If you think being pro-USA and pro-Israel is evidence of not being far left, then yes. However, since there is always the possibility that you either phrased it wrong or interpret in in a different way, I though it best to ask for clarification.

So, care to answer the question?
Click to expand...


Nope. It doesn't follow at all, as basic logic should tell you. The fact that explicit love for America and Israel doesn't fit with a self-proclaimed far left stance, doesn't mean that "the left" in general has to be explicitly opposed to America and Israel. The obvious answer to your nonsensical off-topic question is "no".
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Not irrelevant. It shows he is a fool/liar/mentally ill (you belong to at least one of these sets if you're a truther) and his opinion shold not be taken seriously by anyone.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Nope. It doesn't follow at all, as basic logic should tell you. The fact that explicit love for America and Israel doesn't fit with a self-proclaimed far left stance, doesn't mean that "the left" in general has to be explicitly opposed to America and Israel. The obvious answer to your nonsensical off-topic question is "no".
Click to expand...

Okay. Then why does an explicit love for America and Israel not fit with a far left stance?
 
Mycroft said:
Okay. Then why does an explicit love for America and Israel not fit with a far left stance?
Click to expand...


Because a far left stance - we are speaking about what the "Antigermans" pretend to be, a German Communist Splinter Group - includes anti-imperialism, and cheering the two most imperialistic countries of today's political landscape just doesn't fit. Got that, Mycroft? Any more questions?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Because a far left stance - we are speaking about what the "Antigermans" pretend to be, a German Communist Splinter Group - includes anti-imperialism, and cheering the two most imperialistic countries of today's political landscape just doesn't fit. Got that, Mycroft? Any more questions?
Click to expand...
So a basic tenet of lefties is not knowing what the word "imperialism" means?
 
WildCat said:
So a basic tenet of lefties is not knowing what the word "imperialism" means?
Click to expand...

The basic tenet is to re-invent the word, and to be completely dismissive of totalitarianism, like in this Libyan case.

They prefer to fight their "imperialist" chimera than to actually fight real dictatorships.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Because a far left stance - we are speaking about what the "Antigermans" pretend to be, a German Communist Splinter Group - includes anti-imperialism, and cheering the two most imperialistic countries of today's political landscape just doesn't fit. Got that, Mycroft? Any more questions?
Click to expand...

So to be a far lefty, it's okay if you don't hate the USA or Israel (not recommended), but you're just not allowed to like them too much?
 
HoverBoarder said:
We did not go into Libya to replace a despot with another. We went in under a UN mandate to protect civilians from the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians under Gaddafi. It's the same reason we went into Kosovo
Click to expand...

These two claims deserve comment.

First, if you think that protecting civilians from indiscriminate mass slaughter is all the UN is doing in Libya you are delusional. Back around March 5th Obama called for "regime change" in Libya. On March 21 he said our military wouldn't try to push Ghaddafi out … and then US and NATO forces began their campaign to ravage Ghaddafi's military forces and kill Ghaddafi. And that campaign is still going on. Obama said we'd "install a democratic system". Doesn't "install" imply toppling … something far more extreme than simply preventing mass slaughters of civilians?

And, second ...

RANT! We went into Kosovo because Clinton needed something to take the public's attention off the Cox Report (damning revelations about Chinagate). So the Clinton administration painted a lie about genocide (claimed hundreds of thousands were being killed when in fact only 1000s died and as many of them were Serbs as non-Serbs). And got the UN to intervene by painting another lie about Serb intransigence in dealing with Kosovo. The truth is that Serbs said no to a totally unreasonable demand that NATO troops be allowed access to all parts of Serbia, be hosted to a large extent at Serb cost, and be immune from any legal consequences for any improprieties. And when all was said and done, the US/NATO military actually lost the conflict with tiny Serbia's military so they switched to civilian targets, committing what should be viewed as war crimes. And the end result was real ethnic cleansing (this time conducted by our new, victorious allies, the KLA). And the democracy movement in Serbia was actually hurt by the bombing. And although Clinton said "I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war" that's exactly what his planners were busy preparing to do. And had he done that, NATO itself admitted after the war that the Yugoslav 3rd Army could have held out for weeks or even months. And we are still in Kosovo despite promises by Clinton to be out by Christmas years and years and years ago. The hypocrisy of the Bush hating, Clinton loving legions is starkly evident in Kosovo. And those same legions are now defending Obama no matter what he does. (And by the way, look how many Clintonites who were part of the Kosovo travesty are now members of the Obama administration … like the late Holbrooke.
 
BeAChooser said:
First, if you think that protecting civilians from indiscriminate mass slaughter is all the UN is doing in Libya you are delusional. Back around March 5th Obama called for "regime change" in Libya. On March 21 he said our military wouldn't try to push Ghaddafi out … and then US and NATO forces began their campaign to ravage Ghaddafi's military forces and kill Ghaddafi. And that campaign is still going on. Obama said we'd "install a democratic system". Doesn't "install" imply toppling … something far more extreme than simply preventing mass slaughters of civilians?
Click to expand...

The best way to protect the civilians is to kill the guy who is slaughtering them to maintain his grip on power. Obama failing to stay on message doesn't change that.

BeAChooser said:
RANT! We went into Kosovo because Clinton needed something to take the public's attention off the Cox Report (damning revelations about Chinagate). So the Clinton administration painted a lie about genocide (claimed hundreds of thousands were being killed when in fact only 1000s died and as many of them were Serbs as non-Serbs). And got the UN to intervene by painting another lie about Serb intransigence in dealing with Kosovo. The truth is that Serbs said no to a totally unreasonable demand that NATO troops be allowed access to all parts of Serbia, be hosted to a large extent at Serb cost, and be immune from any legal consequences for any improprieties. And when all was said and done, the US/NATO military actually lost the conflict with tiny Serbia's military so they switched to civilian targets, committing what should be viewed as war crimes. And the end result was real ethnic cleansing (this time conducted by our new, victorious allies, the KLA). And the democracy movement in Serbia was actually hurt by the bombing. And although Clinton said "I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war" that's exactly what his planners were busy preparing to do. And had he done that, NATO itself admitted after the war that the Yugoslav 3rd Army could have held out for weeks or even months. And we are still in Kosovo despite promises by Clinton to be out by Christmas years and years and years ago. The hypocrisy of the Bush hating, Clinton loving legions is starkly evident in Kosovo. And those same legions are now defending Obama no matter what he does. (And by the way, look how many Clintonites who were part of the Kosovo travesty are now members of the Obama administration … like the late Holbrooke.
Click to expand...

Where did you get this crap from?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Because a far left stance - we are speaking about what the "Antigermans" pretend to be, a German Communist Splinter Group - includes anti-imperialism, and cheering the two most imperialistic countries of today's political landscape just doesn't fit. Got that, Mycroft? Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Hey Childlike Empress, please explain how Israel is an empire.

This should be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom