» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: LyricBoy on 03/18/11 at 6:46 pm

The resolutions and no-fly zone obver Libya will ultimately prove to be a futile and not well thought out undertaking.

However much all of us do not like Quadaffi, we must consider the alternative, which in all likelihood will be an Islamic state that will look to sponsor and inflict more terrorism than Mumar ever fantasized about.  That is, if Mumar does not crush them anyway.

The rebels in Libya are an armed force, using captured tanks and weapons.  As such their force is fair game for the government to attack at will.  The UN should keep its nose out of this, and the long drawn-out process which yielded the cease-fire goes to show that the UN stands for nothing.

One of the problems with modern-day international interventions is that wars rarely end quickly, and the so-called cease-fires just allow both sides to refresh and rearm, to kick ass forever.  Let these two forces fight it out and to the winner go the spoils.

Mind you I am no fan of Quadaffi.  But the so-called UN intervention is counterproductive.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: EthanM on 03/18/11 at 9:40 pm

I think this is the first time I've completely agreed with you in a political thread.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/18/11 at 10:18 pm

Folks do tend to agree with you, LB, up until the streets are littered with maggoty mangled corpses of dead children...then our bleeding hearts say, "We've got to do SOMETHING..."
:o

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: Foo Bar on 03/19/11 at 1:31 am

While the people actually overthrowing the guy imposed a no-fly zone over Scotland...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/29/world/29lockerbie-600.jpg

...got blowed up from the air, while the UN dithered for three freaking weeks.

But let the record be clear.  Gadaffi ordered that atrocity, and the guy who actually pulled the trigger?  According to You Know Who, he was let go by the UK in exchange for a sweet business deal.


The resolutions and no-fly zone obver Libya will ultimately prove to be a futile and not well thought out undertaking.


So if you add "...because it came three weeks too late", and you'll have my agreement.

Me?  I hold a grudge.  (It's almost like I never forgive, never forget.)  The UN resolution is right and just - and it's not merely 3 weeks too late, it's 23 years too late.  (Technically, 25 years too late, if you accept that Pan Am 103 was retaliation against us for our retaliation for the Berlin Discotheque bombing.)  

I've been hoping for this since some dude in Malta warned him of Reagan's air raid in '86.  The guy said he wanted to die in Libya, and I say "challenge accepted".  

If a missile should accidentally find its way into a compound owned by Gaddafi...

http://www.f-111.net/art/ron-wong/images/F111_libya.jpg

...well, sic sempter terrists.

If there's a God, there's a 30-40something dude flying a drone or a B-2, and he'll be listening to Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Love Missile F-111 when he presses the button.  The song came out in 1986, and no force in the universe will ever convince me that "Love Missile F1-11" was anything other than a typographical error or the Brits being very, very polite about the whole thing.

Shoot it up, shoot it up, shoot it up.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: LyricBoy on 03/19/11 at 5:06 am

Oh, I woulda had no problem with a retaliatory attack after Lockerbie. No doubt about that.

But this present UN intervention thing is cynical, poorly conceived, and ultimately too late anyway.

O'bama knows it is wrong...otherwise he would not be withholding attack aircraft. (USA role will be surveillance and logistics)

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: LyricBoy on 03/19/11 at 7:45 am


I think this is the first time I've completely agreed with you in a political thread.


Karma + 1

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: Foo Bar on 03/20/11 at 1:19 am


Oh, I woulda had no problem with a retaliatory attack after Lockerbie. No doubt about that.


I think I've seen our biggest difference of opinion on this one - I'm just thinking of this as a payback time that's 23 years overdue.  This is something we've wanted to do for a Very Long Time, and it's only been through dumb luck that the political winds have made it feasible.

Back in the day, we cut a deal with the guy - as did the Brits - and we had to hold our noses and stick to it, especially after Gulf War II when Daffy saw the writing on the wall and turned over most of his toys (there are some interesting rumors regarding what happened to those toys with respect to last year's goings-on in Iran, and I hope to live long enough to see 'em Wikileaked in a couple of decades) to Bush II. 


But this present UN intervention thing is cynical, poorly conceived, and ultimately too late anyway.


Cynical only if the UN expects that they delayed long enough to permit Gadaffi to win.  (That was my opinion until today when the bombs started flying.)

It's actually pretty well-conceived.  Gadaffi probably thought his fake ceasefire on Friday would be accepted at face value - it only had to buy him another 48 hours and he'd have crushed the rebellion.  The UN, to my surprise, didn't fall for it. 

Too late?  Yeah, that's what I'd have said if it was written as a "no fly" zone.  But the UN, also to my surprise, passed a resolution calling for the defense of civilians.  That makes any Gadaffi-loyalist forces a legitimate target, and not just his air force.  With that kind of scope, the jury's still out on "too late".

What's the alternative?  Establish a precedent that when a dictator wants to bomb his own civilian population, he's free to do so?  That's what I'd expect the UN to do.  That's what the UN usually does.  Is that really the road you want the world to go down?


O'bama knows it is wrong...otherwise he would not be withholding attack aircraft. (USA role will be surveillance and logistics)


Wrong?  Right?  What do those words have to do with geopolitics?

We're doing what we're best at: using our high-tech gadgets to tell coalition forces where to go hunting, and lobbing high-tech-toys at (presumably) enemy SAM sites so that other coalition air forces can more safely get some target practice on Gadaffi's ground forces.  We go in, and we give Daffy and Chavez the propaganda they want: that the Damyankees are tryin' to take his oil. 

We support the international forces that are providing air support for the rebellion, and when the dust settles, we get to say something like "Hey, post-revolution Libya!  You saw how badly we messed up in Iraq trying to take their oil, so when you asked the world for help, you made it really clear you wanted us to stay out of it, so we respected that and stayed off your turf.  Congrats on winning, and now that you know we're not just trying to take your oil, would ya mind if we bought some of it?"

Meanwhile, an F-22 against any ground or air target?  No contest.  A Rafale against ground target protected by a bunch of ZSU-23s?  There's a lot of French export markets that'd pay good money to find out how that plays out in the real world.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: LyricBoy on 03/20/11 at 7:47 am



What's the alternative?  Establish a precedent that when a dictator wants to bomb his own civilian population, he's free to do so?  That's what I'd expect the UN to do.  That's what the UN usually does.  Is that really the road you want the world to go down?


It is happening all over the world.  Dictators  oppress their citizens.  Are we going to bomb Baharain?  Send special forces into Syria?  Establish a no-fly zone over Iran? Invade Uzbekistan?  Free Tibet?  Invade the Congo?  Remove the regime in Burma?

At the end of the day the intervention in Libya is wrong for one major reason... it will PROLONG the violence, result in MORE deaths in the long term, and further FERTILIZE Libya for Islamic terrorism.

By the way, if one thinks that Quadaffi is the only one killing civilians in Libya, they are naive.  both Quadaffi's forces as well as the rebel forces are killing civilians... it happens in war.  And now the foreign invaders are also killing civilians.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/20/11 at 11:06 am



If there's a God, there's a 30-40something dude flying a drone or a B-2, and he'll be listening to Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Love Missile F-111 when he presses the button.  The song came out in 1986, and no force in the universe will ever convince me that "Love Missile F1-11" was anything other than a typographical error or the Brits being very, very polite about the whole thing.

Shoot it up, shoot it up, shoot it up.



Okay, Ferris, I'll be Cameron in the backseat!

-- Please don't say were not going to take the B-2 home. Please don't say were not going to take the B-2 home. Please don't say were not going to take the B-2 home.

-- If you had access to a bomber like this, would you take it back right away?  Neither would I!


:o

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: Foo Bar on 03/20/11 at 7:33 pm


-- If you had access to a bomber like this, would you take it back right away?  Neither would I! :o


"If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."
  - F. Bueller, CEO, Northrop-Grumman

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: philbo on 03/21/11 at 9:12 am


The rebels in Libya are an armed force, using captured tanks and weapons.  As such their force is fair game for the government to attack at will.

If Gadaffi were being discriminating enough to go after the people shooting back and nobody else, I don't think the UN resolution would have been passed.  But I still think you're right that it'll turn out to be an ill-considered move in the long term.


But let the record be clear.  Gadaffi ordered that atrocity, and the guy who actually pulled the trigger?  According to You Know Who, he was let go by the UK in exchange for a sweet business deal.

If you believe Al Megrahi actually pulled the trigger, it probably means you've not looked at the trial evidence and what has come out since.  It's staggering that he was convicted on the evidence against him at the trial, and Private Eye has reported on many occasions about the holes & inconsistencies, etc: they did a special report in 2001 (that you can download here for a few quid.. it may be elsewhere on t'web), and I challenge anyone to read it and still be convinced they got the right guy.

Some of the loudest voices calling for his release have been from the families of people who died in Lockerbie.

Subject: Re: United Nations F's Up Again...

Written By: Foo Bar on 03/21/11 at 10:17 pm


If you believe Al Megrahi actually pulled the trigger, it probably means you've not looked at the trial evidence and what has come out since.


Yeah, that I can buy - the point I was trying (and failed :) to make was that the guy who pulled the trigger is small potatoes compared to the guy who gave the order.


It is happening all over the world.  Dictators  oppress their citizens.  Are we going to bomb Baharain?  Send special forces into Syria?  Establish a no-fly zone over Iran? Invade Uzbekistan?  Free Tibet?  Invade the Congo?  Remove the regime in Burma?


There are degrees of oppression of which even the UN won't tolerate.  The degree is a function of the amount of useful economic activity the country performs (e.g. Rwanda, nobody cares.  Cote d'Ivoire, we'll raise an eyebrow because that's where some of our chocolate comes from.  Libya, Gadhafi had to go full duck to get us to care, and Saudi Arabia...)


At the end of the day the intervention in Libya is wrong for one major reason... it will PROLONG the violence, result in MORE deaths in the long term, and further FERTILIZE Libya for Islamic terrorism.


...speaking of Saudi Arabia, a bunch of Saudi Arabian citizens, inspired by "teachers" educated in Saudia Arabia, in schools funded by Saudi Arabia, flew a couple of planes into a couple of buildings 10 years ago, and we not only bombed everywhere but Saudi Arabia, we turned our own country into a fully-wiretapped nude-scanning ball-grabbing surveillance state just to make sure none of their religious fanatics would manage to repeat that little stunt.

Maybe this is another one of those things on which we have a core disagreement.  From where I sit, dictators encourage religious fundamentalism and other forms of fanatacisms because as long as their miserable populations are busy blaming $THE_ETHNICS, they'll be venting their anger externally, rather than at the dictators who made their populations miserable in the first place.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5543390363_0e2570b889.jpg

But hey, if you wanna be on the same side of the issue as the International Socialists ANSWER folks, be my guest :)  

Check for new replies or respond here...