No Fly Zone

Armistead · 03-01-11, 05:10 PM

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

Jimbuna · 03-01-11, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

Great one jim.

Dave has been reading Tony's Blairs book, the section on how to get re-elected...go to war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Jim...why do you think the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is still a part of the RAF?

LOL...The UK government have just declared their intention to create a no fly zone.

Or "Royal Air Force" as it used to be known.

tater · 03-01-11, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

It'd be nice for the lads to get some air to air practice instead of just bombs. That's a good reason.

Dowly · 03-01-11, 07:44 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

Quote:

The head of US Central Command (CENTCOM) has warned that world leaders
would have to consider bombing raids if they wanted to enforce a no-fly zone
over strife-torn Libya.

nikimcbee · 03-01-11, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

No blood for Libyan oil.

Bubblehead1980 · 03-01-11, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

Bubblehead1980 · 03-01-11, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without an agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly mislead us into war.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President(no one to yell at) and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it unless Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE then, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without a agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly lie.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it.Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

But we still went in there without being attacked. And it was the neo-conservative Republicans who presented the evidence and lead the charge. Plenty of Democrats supported it as well, but the NeoCons lead the charge. We went in under the auspices of ending the weapons programs and making the world safer, espeically for America. We accomplished neither, political spin or not. Those are plain and simple facts, and we would all do well to remember that the next time we stick our nose into that region of the world.

tater · 03-01-11, 09:22 PM

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Takeda Shingen · 03-01-11, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Well, not having a degree in political science, I'd have to back out of the conversation. However, I think it a very good point that none of our efforts in the Middle East, Iraq included, have been successful in securing our interests. However, this is likely disputable as I am also lacking a degree in international relations.

Bubblehead1980 · 03-02-11, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

But we still went in there without being attacked. And it was the neo-conservative Republicans who presented the evidence and lead the charge. Plenty of Democrats supported it as well, but the NeoCons lead the charge. We went in under the auspices of ending the weapons programs and making the world safer, espeically for America. We accomplished neither, political spin or not. Those are plain and simple facts, and we would all do well to remember that the next time we stick our nose into that region of the world.

We basically agree takeda, no US troops should be sent to Libya or anywhere else right now.Some nation attacks us, sure but no optional intervention, can't afford it and not worth the lives.

03-01-11, 09:22 PM	#10
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact). __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

03-01-11, 05:10 PM	#1
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.