Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

@georgeob1,

I don't give a damn who leads it. It needs to happen. It doesn't need to be symbolic, it simply needs to stop aircraft from firing on protesters.

African Union, EU, NATO, UN I don't give a damn.

What the hell kind of post was that anyway? You just want to debate? To argue? I'm a liberal, so you simply must assume an opposing stance? You partisan hack, develop some sympathy for those caught up in the clashes, and grow a pair of balls while you're at it.

scumbag.

A
R
T

4 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I think he was kidding.

I am not. Using aircraft raises this to a whole new level. This kind of thing will generate some sort of response.

A
Response
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I don't give a damn who leads it. It needs to happen. It doesn't need to be symbolic, it simply needs to stop aircraft from firing on protesters.

African Union, EU, NATO, UN I don't give a damn.

Is there going to be an act of war declared first?? Or maybe you don't believe in national sovereignty....

Your redress is to bring Gadhafi up on charges in the Hague, it is not launching military operations against libya even if you happen to think of youself as a liberator.

0 Replies

BBC reports (citing another source) that Ghadaffi may be making an appearance on tv shortly. But it is now midnight so to me that seems to be unlikely.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I don't give a damn who leads it. It needs to happen. It doesn't need to be symbolic, it simply needs to stop aircraft from firing on protesters.

African Union, EU, NATO, UN I don't give a damn.

What the hell kind of post was that anyway? You just want to debate? To argue? I'm a liberal, so you simply must assume an opposing stance? You partisan hack, develop some sympathy for those caught up in the clashes, and grow a pair of balls while you're at it.

scumbag.

Now that was a little intemperate and not very polite either. Moreover the particulars of your attempts at insults don't fit the situation. However, I suppose it is hard to think clearly when you are so filled with righteous indignation.

Given the urgency of your statement, and my impression that you generally find intervention in the affairs of others - even notable unsavory governments - by the U.S. to be harmful, I merely assumed you had a practical option in mind.

Now I see that you believe your moral stature is so elevated that you can merely state your demands, snap your fingers and expect the deed to be done (presumably also without any bad side effects either).

Perhaps we could unleash the vaunted International Criminal Court on him.

1 Reply

It doesn't have to be invasion. I never said it did, but I would understand why you rush to that conclusion. What the Libyan people and the Libyan government need to know is that wholesale murder of protestors will not be tolerated.

I'm not talking about a preemptive strike or hitting their airfields etc. I'm saying that some very real consequence must be laid out and then Libya can then respond. If no response is made, what does that say? Silence is permission.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

That doesn't sound like this;

failures art wrote:

This **** is getting out of hand. A FIRM global response needs to happen.

In any event my comments (to which you objected so vociferously) remain both relevant and timely. They are particularly apt, given the absence of exactly that in almost all other analogous situations, ranging from the massacres in Bosnia, South Sudan, and even the suppression of the Basra Shia in Iraq by Saddam. You appear to be demanding something that the world doesn't do.

WHO should "lay out some very real consequences" ? What should they be? WHO will inflict them if Lybia doesn't agree or respond?

If you don't address these questions, you are merely sputtering loudly and indignantly, but with no effect. "No balls" indeed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You appear to be demanding something that the world doesn't do.

Imagine that. Let's assume you're right (you aren't) that the world never unites against a nation turning it's weapons on its own people, why would it be wrong to ask that they did?

Asking "who" responds is secondary to the question of whether this kind of event warrants any response.

So george, does it?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

When I wrote "that is something the world doesn't do" I was (clearly, I think) referring to the normal working of the world throughout history and in current times. In that context. my statement was entirely correct.

You appear to value abstract posturing above concrete plans, action or reality. If so, that is your right. However, I regard that as merely silly posturing for effect, not worthy of serious thought or consideration.

You have asked me to be silly like you. I decline.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Silence is permission.

That is a very odd position for a self described liberal to take, considering that liberals argue almost unanimously the opposite when it comes to sex law. There you go again with situational ethics !

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

If the law is silent about people being raped, then it is permissive. There is no contradiction. In related news: Shut the **** up. Stop bringing your pet sickness into every ******* thread.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

ahem...

failures art wrote:

So george, does it?

Ahem
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

How about lowering the degree of your self-importance, silly posturing and offensive language here? This is a dialogue, not a contest.

1 Reply

Hillary Clinton made a statement a few minutes ago.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

If the law is silent about people being raped, then it is permissive.

It all boils down to what the definition is rape is....the liberals have it that silence is not consent/approval, thus it is possible to rape a woman who does not fight back and who never voices disapproval. You want to claim the opposite here, that if we are silent and let these people deal with their situation themselves then we are consenting to the hostility being carried out against them.

Make up your mind, is silence consent or is it not?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'm not going to waste my time with you George. You're trolling. This isn't a dialog if you are asked questions you don't answer. Given your record, I'm weary to hold my breathe.

In summary: **** **** bugger piss. Deal with it.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'n not normally very fond of such abstract arguments, but in this case, you certainly got him at his own game.

Amusing

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time with you George. You're trolling. This isn't a dialog if you are asked questions you don't answer. Given your record, I'm weary to hold my breathe.

As I answered your request earlier;

Quote:

You have asked me to be silly like you. I decline.

You are now locked in an analogous abstract argument with Hawkeye, and aren't so far doing very well either. Merely more sputtering.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'n not normally very fond of such abstract arguments, but in this case, you certainly got him at his own game.

I am way sick of these people who make grand assaults on individual rights on the grounds of moral absolutes, when any fool in ten seconds of examination can see that they dont really believe in these morals except in certain situations. It is a lot of "I want what I want and I want it now" dressed up in a morality tale....in other words lipstick on a pig...

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Give it a rest you sicko. The silence is of the third observer, not the victim. We are observing Libya--the whole world is. Do we say nothing? What does it mean if WE say nothing? Obviously, the Libyans are not silent.

A
R
T

2 Replies

Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know