And here I was thinking all the time that we had declared war on you....:hmm2:

And this is from - always biting - Henryk Broder. Like so often, his irony is right on the mark.

About the neutrality of the German heart, and the heartlessness this results in. Or in other words: about the stupid babbling of Merkel.

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.p...aet_ohne_herz/

my 2 cents on the issue.

On leadership: Sarkozy is an incompetent fool with napolenic concept and he is an awful person to lead this. It is OBVIOUS all of this for him is a PR campaign. However this is questionable given how many muslims live in france and he's biting more than he can chew. his previous war experience in Georgia Russia conflict has shown that he's a spineless coward who is all about talk but can be easily intimidated. He's of the Berlusconi mould, but at least Berlousconi is just dangerous to young women who dont know what they're getting into.


On the operation: it looks too raw and unplanned. I've no idea what's the play and goal here? Make a stalemate? Well, that they can but that's the worst. The goal should be covert opps and taking out the lunatic. It all sounds too similar to the Iraq now. With tiny difference - this is right near europes door step and guy, unlike Saddam, has a history of sponsoring terrorism on real scale. Lockerby anyone..

The Georgia episode showed that he wasn't a complete idiot.
Some people however think that idiocy is the same as bravery and that people who are not idiots are somehow cowards.

Officially yes, But we left you little choice. We violated neutrality laws, armed opponents, physically escorted Allied ships and fired on German's well before war was declared. There was also the sinking of a German merchant vessel in the Caribbean sea by joint U.S. and Dutch forces.

so you read the economist, ccip.

And you think that consistency and standards have no place in the global policing business? And you think that (so far unsubstantiated by you) fears of what might have followed military defeat for the rebels is sufficient reason for intervention. Is rhetoric sufficient grounds for these fears to be acted upon?

Is the only lesson, don't get on the wrong side of the US? That is the lesson that is being underscored here.

Not that I have a problem with that. My problem is the end game, now we are again in the regime change and nation building business. And Iraq and Afghanistan showed us one thing - the end game can last many times longer than the early and mid games

Points taken.

that region is full of rock throwing people. Guess the solar panels dont' need bombs to take them out, rocks will do. :doh:


IN GENERAL, i think we in the "western world" have become so allergic to war, that we object to it always, and always are the first to criticize ourselves. I think people like Qaddafi need to be taken out, and if we happen to have the means - then so be it. I think that Europe is in general being overrun by now by immigration who don't want to integrate but only use the good parts of our life, and this whole fundamental liberalism is a threat to Europe in long run. we should stop crucifying ourselves and let the military do its job and clean up Qaddafi. Once he has no air control, it's going to be easier to find the SOB and get him. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with going after this guy in the circumstances. he's schizophrenic - just look at him. you just can't have him in power. All this fundamental liberalist politically correct bull**** that i'm reading about consistency and wot not - all that is irrelevant in this case. the guy should have been taken out years ago. its our fault and we're just fixing the mistake. I think there is right and wrong. I didn't care for war in Iraq, but everyone seems to be in consensus and there is a UN mandate. So - i hope this lest the military fully do its job and take the bastard out or make him submit.

You would have thought the people of Libya would give Gaddafi a bit more respect ...........

After all , he cured the Lockerbie bomber of cancer.

Why does it always boil down to this argument "The guy should have been taken out years ago."

I seem to hear that as justification for every time we want to pop our tomahawk rocks off.

If that is the case then so be it but things change. I'm not PC and I'm not anti war I just have strict guidelines as to what constitutes justifications for war and what doesn't. I think any war you're country gets involved in should be defensive. Now if your country is not threatened by the opposing country then why get involved? In fact I cannot name one war we have been in in the last century that wasn't offensive in nature. :arrgh!:

Even if the effort is sanctioned by the UN, I think, it's been a bit slow, they could have acted earlier, and in many ways

Gunna cost the UK a fortune, our planes are coming from cyprus.

If only we had a way to get them closer, maybe launch from a ship... a sort of aircraft carrying ship...

And carriers don'T cost you a fortune to maintain them 365 days a year?

Disagree, WWII of course and what about Korea? Or was it the US that attacked North Korea?

Regarding the Middle east I am very skeptical about the current operation for reasons many have stated, especially with who we are supporting-who are the rebels and how did they get so well armed so quickly (well-armed in comparison with the protesters in Tunisia and Egypt.

Okay you have a point on Korea and WWII (Japanese theater)

Also doesn't anybody find it weird that after meeting with the rebel leaders once, Europe was so quick to take sides. Any oil trade backroom deals set up?:hmmm: