Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire

Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marini -> Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:18:14 PM)
I am watching coverage of what is going on in Libya and I just saw soldiers that were lying on the ground, face down, that had been shot by other soldiers because they refused to shoot civilians. What is going on in Libya is horrific, to say the least. I can't find the other thread on Libya, what happened to it? What is going on in Libya, I call "Qaddafi unleashed", what is that madman going to do to his own people before he finally goes down? I just heard people in Libya asking for help from the US, but nooooooooooooo we aren't even thinking about it. President Obama has condemned the violence over there, but is that it? I realize the U.S. is already involved with our dealings with Qaddafi, now we see the result from dealing and bargaining with that lunatic. Thoughts on Qaddafi, Libya, the coverage, the fall out?

VideoAdminRho -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:24:11 PM)
As the previous thread on this subject had to be removed due to multiple personal attacks and hijacks, I'm going to ask everyone to please stay on topic and 'play nice' on this one. Thank you in advance.

Marini -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho As the previous thread on this subject had to be removed due to multiple personal attacks and hijacks, I'm going to ask everyone to please stay on topic and 'play nice' on this one. Thank you in advance. Thank you for responding my darling buttercup. I didn't see what happened at the end of that thread, I tend to stop reading and posting when the threads get UGLY. I hope we can discuss issues without acting like asses. Thanks for the responding, I looked long and hard for that thread that went "POOF" due to the adults that are not capable of discussing serious issues without name-calling and getting "a little bit too carried away".

rulemylife -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:34:55 PM)
I'm just trying to figure out when someone is going to learn how to spell this guy's name. Just like back in the Reagan era, you can look at today's news and find ten different spellings.

Marini -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:38:15 PM)
I see it spelled Qaddafi all over the internet and on t.v. so I am going with this spelling.

TheHeretic -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:40:15 PM)
Well shoot. I missed the fun, huh? Kuhdaffy is going down. I just hope the guy who blew up the plane over Lockerbie meets some awful death in the process.

rulemylife -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 8:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I see it spelled Qaddafi all over the internet and on t.v. so I am going with this spelling. Well, not to hijack your thread, because it is a serious topic, but this is just what I have seen today. And I'm going to shut up about it now. [:D] Libya protests: Gaddafi flees Tripoli Crude oil jumps 6% as Libya protests spread - USATODAY.com Oil prices jumped Monday because of the turmoil in Libya, where Moammar Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi... Libya protests continue despite Qaddafi threats

TheHeretic -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:00:35 PM)
Generally I'll go with the NYT handbook of style, but he's a murdering shit of a dictator, and the world would have been better off 25 years ago if he had been in the outhouse, when the bombers Reagan sent blew it up. The spelling is completely open to mockery.

Marini -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:05:57 PM)
I did find it spelled Gaddafi an awful lot, ugh. At least we all know "who" we are talking about.

DarkSteven -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I just heard people in Libya asking for help from the US, but nooooooooooooo we aren't even thinking about it. President Obama has condemned the violence over there, but is that it? I realize the U.S. is already involved with our dealings with Qaddafi, now we see the result from dealing and bargaining with that lunatic. One concern is that there were 500 Americans still in Libya at the time. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/23/obama.libya.response/index.html?hpt=T1 Last thing Obama needs is a Carter-style hostage situation. Another concern is that our options are limited. We need to preserve the relationships with other Arab states, and meddling with Libya would send a clear signal that we'll turn on our Arab frenemies. And what CAN we do? The US is not exactly loved over there, and showing favor to the rebels may well weaken their cause. Bluntly, I believe that Obama's policy on the Middle East unrest is perfectly pitched thus far. He's avoided getting visibly involved in Egypt, while quietly maneuvering behind the scenes. And he's ensuring that Americans are safe and out of Libya. He's not showing as a heavy-handed meddler like Bush.

rulemylife -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Generally I'll go with the NYT handbook of style, but he's a murdering shit of a dictator, and the world would have been better off 25 years ago if he had been in the outhouse, when the bombers Reagan sent blew it up. The spelling is completely open to mockery. Yes it would have been, but since this is the politics section it would be be remiss of me not to point out who gave him respectability. U.S. to renew ties with Libya - World news - Mideast/N. Africa ...May 15, 2006 ... WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Monday it will restore normal diplomatic relations with Libya for the first time in over a quarter ... And the reason for this was: U.S. Companies Lobbied To Keep Libyan Market Open For Business

TheHeretic -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:31:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Bluntly, I believe that Obama's policy on the Middle East unrest is perfectly pitched thus far. He's avoided getting visibly involved in Egypt, while quietly maneuvering behind the scenes. And he's ensuring that Americans are safe and out of Libya. He's not showing as a heavy-handed meddler like Bush. Steve, this is one of those times when I read your post and wonder at how wrong you are. You didn't pick up a brownie at a street fair or anything, did you? President Obama, and his administration, stumbled through Egypt, like Jerry Lewis going through a nudist colony in one of his old movies. "Mubarek isn't a dictator." "Mubarek must go." "There needs to be an orderly transition." The President seemed to be caught in the mood of the moment, just like the rest of us. That gives me little confidence in how he handles what is still coming over there. The only part of what I snipped that I can agree with is the wisdom of getting our people out. Awful as it sounds, the best outcome here might be waking up in the morning to video of crowds dragging his body through the streets. Then we hope the Islamic Crazy People don't take over.

DarkSteven -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 9:58:44 PM)
Rich, I will grant you that Biden shot off his mouth at the onset. To be honest, I'm not sure why Obama picked him. At least he didn't go with Edwards - then the administration would be bogged down in the Rielle Hunter mess. But aside from that, he's voiced quiet support for Mubarak, followed by increasing distance as the thugs beat up protesters and as Mubarak's grip weakened. Behind the scenes he was pressuring Mubarak to leave. As I said earlier, he had to walk a fine line between alienating the other Arab leaders and alienating the rebels, with the situation changing daily. I'm wondering if Ghonem's employment at Google might be worth a little US favor with the new regime. We actually don't have a lot of options. Military invasion would be insane. The current policy seems to be to wait and see, with some gentle nudges. And then hope like hell we can work with whoever comes out on top.

tweakabelle -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/23/2011 11:46:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven We actually don't have a lot of options. Military invasion would be insane. The current policy seems to be to wait and see, with some gentle nudges. And then hope like hell we can work with whoever comes out on top. Your analysis is spot on it seems to me. American influence and options are very limited. The twin errors of support for the old order and the Israeli alliance have ensured that. Any foreign intervention may retard rather than advance any moves towards democracy. The situation on the ground seems out of control. If and when the pro-democracy forces emerge victorious, then there will lots of opportunities to support a democratic order through aid, trade, reconstruction etc. Denying sanctuary to fleeing dictators and their flunkies, and seizing their ill-gotten gains will certainly help create good will. So will a refusal to recognise or work with new dictators should they emerge. Sooner or later we in the West might analyse why we find ourselves so marginalised. Why are we unable to intervene on the side of freedom and all the things we hold up as our values? Has the Iraq fiasco compromised us fatally? Why do we end up in bed with tinpot dictators and corrupt autocrats time after time? Are we so desperate for oil that we allow anything to happen as long as we get a continuous supply? British PM Cameron posed these questions as a clash between 'values' and 'interests'. Western interests in the region are pretty much limited to oil, banking, arms sales and, in the US case, support for Israel. Is it time to broaden our interests and to learn to understand the values of the region? If we learn anything from the current turmoil, will it be that the average person over there wants jobs, freedom, justice and security - much the same as us? If we are to judge by some of the posts here, Western knowledge of the Arab/Muslim world is minimal, and our understanding even less.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 12:19:14 AM)
http://www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-gaddafi-kadafi-qadaffi-libya-spelling-2011-2

ashjor911 -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 8:44:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I am watching coverage of what is going on in Libya and I just saw soldiers that were lying on the ground, face down, that had been shot by other soldiers because they refused to shoot civilians. What is going on in Libya is horrific, to say the least. I can't find the other thread on Libya, what happened to it? I think it was removed by the Admin or so but Qaddafi said that till now he did not order the force

Marini -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 8:48:19 PM)
ashjor? I wanted to say that I am enjoying your input and thoughts around here. You are like a breath of fresh air! Promise me that you will continue to post here and often!

pahunkboy -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 9:08:01 PM)
He reminds me of someone who likes disco.

Marini -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 9:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy He reminds me of someone who likes disco. Maybe so, I am stuck in the 80s myself. I enjoy listening to his perspective on issues from the Middle East.

StuntmanMike -> RE: Qaddafi unleashed/ Libya on fire (2/24/2011 9:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I just heard people in Libya asking for help from the US, but nooooooooooooo we aren't even thinking about it. President Obama has condemned the violence over there, but is that it? Why should we do anything? We wrote the book on "damned if we do/damned if we don't." If we do nothing, we're sitting idly by while people die. If we help, we're sticking our nose where it isn't wanted and acting as "the world's police force." I say fuck 'em. We only get bashed no matter what we do. Why expend the effort?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1855469