It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
fair enough. personally, i'll assume you don't want to debate this topic like an adult.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement.
well, i suppose you either a) weren't paying attention to the previous post where i pointed out some clear distinctions, or b) are being willfully ignorant in order to support this example, so once again: the UN passed a resolution that the US intervened in Libya as a part of, and Japan LITERALLY DECLARED WAR ON THE US. the reason why "Mexico air raiding America" is a ? example is because this is not what happened in Libya. period. we didn't just say ? it and start bombing ? . and yes, i am typing this with a straight face because there's nothing remotely funny about you refusing to acknowledge what i have already said on the topic.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why isn't Mexico air raiding America a good example?
no, it's talking ? because when i don't agree with you, you leap to this "you're naive, read a book" garbage because apparently you never learned that adults SHOULD be able to disagree about topics. you wanted to know why it wouldn't be the same thing as if Mexico attacked the US out of the blue and i answered the question. if you disagree, make your points; if you want to talk ? , continue to respond with a repetition of the exact same statements paired with insults.kingblaze84 wrote: »Don't be so technical with ? like this, I'm stunned ANYONE in their right mind can say a nation air raiding another nation is NOT an act of war. What the ? are you talking about....this is what I mean by you sounding naive, and that's not talking ? , that's my honest to ? observation of you.
and i'll pretend you're not so ignorant as to be unaware of how the military intervention you're talking about went down. let's look at my statement: "and actually, yeah, the UN absolutely DID need America's help to bomb Libya. who else was going to do it?"kingblaze84 wrote: »And you state America is the only nation that could have air raided Libya? No other nation has airplanes and bomb equipment now? Really Janklow?? I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement.
now, the nations that did not vote in favor are clearly not going to be supplying the means by which military intervention takes place in Libya, so that removes some of the nations you're probably thinking of: Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil. so okay, who's left? the US, obviously, assorted NATO nations, and the handful of non-NATO nations involved. if i scan over the nations that i KNOW seemed to have actively been flying real missions, it's the US, the UK, Canada, France, Norway, Denmark, and Italy (point out anyone i've overlooked). now these guys flew missions, which is no joke, and if the point is that non-US nations did some serious work, okay, here you go: the UN aside from the US did a lot of work during the military intervention in Libya.
HOWEVER, you may remember there was a lot of Tomahawk strikes and other bombing during the early days of this: who did that? or, to put it a different way, who else COULD have done that if the US was not involved?
here is your quote: "Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants, so the slaughter may continue unabated." except, as has been pointed out to you several times now, Sudan did/does, in fact, contain oil, a natural resource prized by Europe and America and one that has been specifically cited by you as the major motivating factor in why Europe and/or America pursue the foreign policies they do.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Sudan having oil, it doesn't have as much as Libya does.
so, okay, in the face of this fact, you pretend it's about the AMOUNT of oil... except you never said that, as you made a blanket statement claiming Sudan lacked resources, and rather than just admitting you overlooked that in an effort to make the remarks you did, you're going to pretend it doesn't matter. feel free to pick the negative adjective that you want and apply it to yourself for this maneuver.
so you're basically admitting that you can't handle his argument and thus are going to resort to personally attacking him? huh.kingblaze84 wrote: »-I've seen some people here say before you talk like someone who works for the CIA, I now see what those people are talking about. -
fair enough. personally, i'll assume you don't want to debate this topic like an adult.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement.
well, i suppose you either a) weren't paying attention to the previous post where i pointed out some clear distinctions, or b) are being willfully ignorant in order to support this example, so once again: the UN passed a resolution that the US intervened in Libya as a part of, and Japan LITERALLY DECLARED WAR ON THE US. the reason why "Mexico air raiding America" is a ? example is because this is not what happened in Libya. period. we didn't just say ? it and start bombing ? . and yes, i am typing this with a straight face because there's nothing remotely funny about you refusing to acknowledge what i have already said on the topic.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why isn't Mexico air raiding America a good example?
no, it's talking ? because when i don't agree with you, you leap to this "you're naive, read a book" garbage because apparently you never learned that adults SHOULD be able to disagree about topics. you wanted to know why it wouldn't be the same thing as if Mexico attacked the US out of the blue and i answered the question. if you disagree, make your points; if you want to talk ? , continue to respond with a repetition of the exact same statements paired with insults.kingblaze84 wrote: »Don't be so technical with ? like this, I'm stunned ANYONE in their right mind can say a nation air raiding another nation is NOT an act of war. What the ? are you talking about....this is what I mean by you sounding naive, and that's not talking ? , that's my honest to ? observation of you.
and i'll pretend you're not so ignorant as to be unaware of how the military intervention you're talking about went down. let's look at my statement: "and actually, yeah, the UN absolutely DID need America's help to bomb Libya. who else was going to do it?"kingblaze84 wrote: »And you state America is the only nation that could have air raided Libya? No other nation has airplanes and bomb equipment now? Really Janklow?? I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement.
now, the nations that did not vote in favor are clearly not going to be supplying the means by which military intervention takes place in Libya, so that removes some of the nations you're probably thinking of: Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil. so okay, who's left? the US, obviously, assorted NATO nations, and the handful of non-NATO nations involved. if i scan over the nations that i KNOW seemed to have actively been flying real missions, it's the US, the UK, Canada, France, Norway, Denmark, and Italy (point out anyone i've overlooked). now these guys flew missions, which is no joke, and if the point is that non-US nations did some serious work, okay, here you go: the UN aside from the US did a lot of work during the military intervention in Libya.
HOWEVER, you may remember there was a lot of Tomahawk strikes and other bombing during the early days of this: who did that? or, to put it a different way, who else COULD have done that if the US was not involved?
here is your quote: "Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants, so the slaughter may continue unabated." except, as has been pointed out to you several times now, Sudan did/does, in fact, contain oil, a natural resource prized by Europe and America and one that has been specifically cited by you as the major motivating factor in why Europe and/or America pursue the foreign policies they do.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Sudan having oil, it doesn't have as much as Libya does.
so, okay, in the face of this fact, you pretend it's about the AMOUNT of oil... except you never said that, as you made a blanket statement claiming Sudan lacked resources, and rather than just admitting you overlooked that in an effort to make the remarks you did, you're going to pretend it doesn't matter. feel free to pick the negative adjective that you want and apply it to yourself for this maneuver.
so you're basically admitting that you can't handle his argument and thus are going to resort to personally attacking him? huh.kingblaze84 wrote: »-I've seen some people here say before you talk like someone who works for the CIA, I now see what those people are talking about.
You got me when it comes to Sudan, but it is still true Sudan does not have as much oil and resources as Libya does. America always seems to interfere in nations that have many resources and tons of oil, what a coincidence....just curious why did America butt in for Libya but not the Sudan? Here's a special link for you Jank.....
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/between-sudan-and-libya-critics-see-u-s-inconsistency-20110314
As human-rights activists see it, one difference is that Libya’s disintegration threatens other Arab regimes; Sudan’s collapse has not caused a wave of instability. More important, Libya is oil-rich and Sudan is not. The Sudanese are “at the bottom of the geopolitical pecking order,” said Sudan researcher and analyst Eric Reeves. “And they’ve been treated accordingly.”
----Anyway, back to the Mexico bombing America example. Let's say Mexico did have a UN vote supporting Mexico's right to bomb America? Would that be any less of an act of war? Think about that for a second, especially how it would be viewed by citizens of America if Mexico was to air raid Arkansas or New York City for a month. You think people here would not consider that an act of war? LOL, you know damn well most people would. I don't give a ? what documents are signed and what statements are made, a nation bombing another nation with its military IS AN ACT OF WAR. PERIOD, ? the technical ? . A civilian or soldier's family being blown apart by a bomb will damn well consider that an act of war.
Regarding America being the "only" nation going along with the Libyan UN coalition having the weaponry required to cruise missile effectively, that doesn't mean America should have gone along with it. The consequences of the war will be felt for a long time to come, especially now that Libya is a terror stronghold now, if you doubt me, feel free to research online for yourself. -
however, since your argument was that Sudan has no resources (like oil) that the West would want --your quote: "Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants"-- in regards to your notion that Libya has MORE oil, i will simply say, "so what?" and then you go on to cite an article that says "well, Sudan has less oil than Libya! oh, and there's some thing about Libya threatening other Arab nations, but let's forget about that..."kingblaze84 wrote: »You got me when it comes to Sudan, but it is still true Sudan does not have as much oil and resources as Libya does.
so are you admitting that your comparison was ? at this point? because i would prefer to resolve THAT question before we move on.kingblaze84 wrote: »Let's say Mexico did have a UN vote supporting Mexico's right to bomb America? Would that be any less of an act of war?
you don't care about what documents are signed because your argument has been that what the US did in Libya would be the EXACT SAME THING as if Mexico air raided the US. if you acknowledge that it makes a difference, it undermines the argument you have been running with for some time now, an argument that you've been pairing with the whole naive/ignorant thing.kingblaze84 wrote: »Think about that for a second, especially how it would be viewed by citizens of America if Mexico was to air raid Arkansas or New York City for a month. You think people here would not consider that an act of war? LOL, you know damn well most people would. I don't give a ? what documents are signed and what statements are made, a nation bombing another nation with its military IS AN ACT OF WAR. PERIOD, ? the technical ? .
yet considering that my point has long been "this wasn't an act of war" and war has technical components that you're aware of, it's pretty ? lame to NOW say the technical stuff doesn't matter because it undermines you ? about me not calling this the Libyan war.
don't put quotes around only unless you're going to tell me WHAT OTHER NATION could have done what the US did.kingblaze84 wrote: »Regarding America being the "only" nation going along with the Libyan UN coalition having the weaponry required to cruise missile effectively-
was THAT the argument? or was it you telling me to read some books because i said the UN needed the US to do what the US did? because maybe we should resolve that point before you dodge it?kingblaze84 wrote: »-that doesn't mean America should have gone along with it.
if you're too ? lazy to support your own statements, i'm not going to do it for you.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you doubt me, feel free to research online for yourself.
-
however, since your argument was that Sudan has no resources (like oil) that the West would want --your quote: "Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants"-- in regards to your notion that Libya has MORE oil, i will simply say, "so what?" and then you go on to cite an article that says "well, Sudan has less oil than Libya! oh, and there's some thing about Libya threatening other Arab nations, but let's forget about that..."kingblaze84 wrote: »You got me when it comes to Sudan, but it is still true Sudan does not have as much oil and resources as Libya does.
so are you admitting that your comparison was ? at this point? because i would prefer to resolve THAT question before we move on.kingblaze84 wrote: »Let's say Mexico did have a UN vote supporting Mexico's right to bomb America? Would that be any less of an act of war?
you don't care about what documents are signed because your argument has been that what the US did in Libya would be the EXACT SAME THING as if Mexico air raided the US. if you acknowledge that it makes a difference, it undermines the argument you have been running with for some time now, an argument that you've been pairing with the whole naive/ignorant thing.kingblaze84 wrote: »Think about that for a second, especially how it would be viewed by citizens of America if Mexico was to air raid Arkansas or New York City for a month. You think people here would not consider that an act of war? LOL, you know damn well most people would. I don't give a ? what documents are signed and what statements are made, a nation bombing another nation with its military IS AN ACT OF WAR. PERIOD, ? the technical ? .
yet considering that my point has long been "this wasn't an act of war" and war has technical components that you're aware of, it's pretty ? lame to NOW say the technical stuff doesn't matter because it undermines you ? about me not calling this the Libyan war.
don't put quotes around only unless you're going to tell me WHAT OTHER NATION could have done what the US did.kingblaze84 wrote: »Regarding America being the "only" nation going along with the Libyan UN coalition having the weaponry required to cruise missile effectively-
was THAT the argument? or was it you telling me to read some books because i said the UN needed the US to do what the US did? because maybe we should resolve that point before you dodge it?kingblaze84 wrote: »-that doesn't mean America should have gone along with it.
if you're too ? lazy to support your own statements, i'm not going to do it for you.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you doubt me, feel free to research online for yourself.
My main argument against this dumb war is that the United States did not enhance its reputation in the Middle East by taking out Gaddafi, and America should not have gone along with it, due to our poor reputation in the Middle East due to subjugating and terrorizing Muslims and Arabs for decades now. Killing more people from the Middle East does little to enhance America's reputation there, considering hundreds of thousands were killed in Iraq and are still being merked in Afghanistan, a failed war at this point. On top of that, we created an unstable nation by taking out Gaddafi, check out this link and see how militias in Libya have not even been told to arrest the attackers of the consulate, despite the commander of the assault being known.....
http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi-gate/2012/10/18/libya-militias-say-they-havent-been-told-arrest-benghazi-terrorist
Libya official says militia commander led raid on U.S. mission
Government-allied militias say they have not been told to arrest the man, identified as Ahmed Abu Khattala, in the Benghazi attack. It is unclear where he is.
By Shashank Bengali and Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times
October 17, 2012, 2:26 p.m.
BENGHAZI, Libya — The militia commander who led the deadly raid on the U.S. mission in Benghazi is an Islamist and former political prisoner whose fighters were also blamed for assassinating a senior military officer after he defected to the opposition during last year's revolution against Moammar Kadafi, a senior Libyan official said.
FBI agents have been shown a cellphone picture of the commander at the scene of the attack, according to Libyans familiar with the investigation. But it is unclear where the man, identified as Ahmed Abu Khattala, is now, and militias loyal to the government say they have received no orders to arrest him or any other suspect in connection with the attack.
In a contentious exchange with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday night, President Obama reiterated his pledge to bring the attackers to justice. But the chaos in Libya after the fall of Kadafi creates daunting obstacles.
With the army and police forces yet to be rebuilt, the government depends on a patchwork of militias to maintain security. Although many of the largest armed groups are allied with the government, authorities are reluctant to order a local militia to move against the attackers for fear of inflaming rivalries — or having their orders refused.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi-gate/2012/10/18/libya-militias-say-they-havent-been-told-arrest-benghazi-terrorist#ixzz2AiTL1w6V
-
yes, i know, i have heard you state this dozens of times. got it; there's nothing new there, and thank you for telling me your position yet again.kingblaze84 wrote: »My main argument against this dumb war is that the United States did not enhance its reputation in the Middle East by taking out Gaddafi BLAH BLAH BLAH
i'm going to note, however, that this doesn't address my prior post at all, which seemed to include some questions for you, so you shouldn't have quoted me as if you were actually responding. -
yes, i know, i have heard you state this dozens of times. got it; there's nothing new there, and thank you for telling me your position yet again.kingblaze84 wrote: »My main argument against this dumb war is that the United States did not enhance its reputation in the Middle East by taking out Gaddafi BLAH BLAH BLAH
i'm going to note, however, that this doesn't address my prior post at all, which seemed to include some questions for you, so you shouldn't have quoted me as if you were actually responding.
I've answered all of your questions before, just not to your satisfaction. You claim America was the only country capable of pulling off the successful no strike zones that were implemented from the UN coalition, and as I stated before, AMERICA should not have gone along with it ANYWAY. It's not America's responsibility to babysit the Middle East when it is so hated in the Middle East.
You constantly say this was not a war because "certain components" were not satisfied, and yet I have already told you people in general would consider one nation bombing its nation an ACT OF WAR. I know this answer does not satisfy you but sorry if I am not as naive as you are. If bombing a nation's airspace and land is not an act of war, I don't know what the ? is. For you to insist America bombing Libya was NOT an act of war shows me your HYPER sense of naivete. I hate to say this but you are very naive to what an act of war is, ask your next door neighbor if one nation bombing another (even if resolutions were signed or whatever) is an act of war . I'll bet good money the avg person would say YES, bombing another nation IS an act of war, but be as naive as you want to be.
You also are not satisfied with my evidence calling Libya a stronghold of terror now. I showed you a link stating Libya's militias have not even been asked to find and arrest the militant commander responsible for destroying America's consulate, now why is that?? There was and IS inside anti-American Libyan officials working for the Libyan govt, and history will show eventually solid proof Libya is a terror stronghold now. Do I have the most solid proof? No I will consent, but I can't think of the last time America's consulate got blown up in a nation that we liberated LOL......this "intervention" was a disaster and a joke, America will regret the day we took out Gaddafi, mark my words. -
i can use this example right here to demonstrate that your claim that you have "answered all of your questions before, just not to your satisfaction" is ? . it goes like this:kingblaze84 wrote: »I've answered all of your questions before, just not to your satisfaction. You claim America was the only country capable of pulling off the successful no strike zones that were implemented from the UN coalition, and as I stated before, AMERICA should not have gone along with it ANYWAY.
janklow: "the UN absolutely DID need America's help to bomb Libya. who else was going to do it?"
kingblaze: "No other nation has airplanes and bomb equipment now? Really Janklow?? I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement."
janklow: "HOWEVER, you may remember there was a lot of Tomahawk strikes and other bombing during the early days of this: who did that? or, to put it a different way, who else COULD have done that if the US was not involved?"
kingblaze: "Regarding America being the "only" nation going along with the Libyan UN coalition having the weaponry required to cruise missile effectively, that doesn't mean America should have gone along with it."
see the last post there? that is not actually ANSWERING the question. you don't agree that only the US could have done this, you insist on stating it as "i CLAIM America was the only country capable" ... yet you are refusing to tell me who else fills the US role or admit that, yeah, the US did something the UN couldn't have done without it. whether or not the US should have joined it is not an answer. so please, don't play this "not to your satisfaction" game when you're flagrantly dodging a question.
you know the sad part? you want to talk this naive ? while claiming "I don't give a ? what documents are signed and what statements are made ... ? the technical ? " as if the "technical ? " doesn't matter when we're talking about international politics. or, to put it another way, if someone brings you an argument, you'll dismiss it on the grounds that you find the "technical ? " that contradicts your argument to be mysteriously inconvenient. that's not arguing a point; that's being childish.kingblaze84 wrote: »I know this answer does not satisfy you but sorry if I am not as naive as you are.
and frankly, if the issue is the US being involved, not whether or not we call it a war, why are you pressing so hard with this "i don't give a ? what terms mean" thing?
you know what? you need a new ? insult when you're trotting out "naive" three times in a row. in fact... i am starting to wonder if you even know what the word naive actually means.kingblaze84 wrote: »For you to insist America bombing Libya was NOT an act of war shows me your HYPER sense of naivete. I hate to say this but you are very naive to what an act of war is-
wait, FOUR times.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'll bet good money the avg person would say YES, bombing another nation IS an act of war, but be as naive as you want to be.
actually, i think i have been saying that you're coming back to this as a way to dodging giving me real responses. whatever, you abandoned any attempt to seriously discuss this topic some time back.kingblaze84 wrote: »You also are not satisfied with my evidence calling Libya a stronghold of terror now.
the really sad part is that i wasted my time trying to discuss it with you. time to euthanize the thread since it's just you talking ? and me feeding into it.
This discussion has been closed.