Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

[TheMercenary]

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart. Obama shows he is tool of the UN in this one... 2012 just can't come soon enough. The dude ignored Darfur but makes a case for a Civil War where we have absolutely no dog in the hunt. I hope his ass is burned in the next election.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart. Obama shows he is tool of the UN in this one... 2012 just can't come soon enough. The dude ignored Darfur but makes a case for a Civil War where we have absolutely no dog in the hunt. I hope his ass is burned in the next election.

In fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.

But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?

Yep.

The Dayton Accords that Clinton personally strong-armed into acceptance by all parties in the conflict effectively ended the civil war...with NO loss of US lives.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

In fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.

And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?

But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.

The threat was from the Cuban and other Com-block nations who were getting a foot-hold in our back yard, but that was in a different time. And it was quite limited in scope and operation compared to many other military events since then.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?

I agree

Different time, different place, different circumstances.

Still no reason for all the histrionics.

Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya

Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.

Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I agree

Different time, different place, different circumstances.

So why bring up Grenada?

Still no reason for all the histrionics.

What histrionics?

Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya

How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?

Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.

It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?

Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).

I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So why bring up Grenada?

You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.

I was simply providing context.

What histrionics?

Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.

How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?

Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.

It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?

We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.

I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.

So did Ghadaffi.

And US intel suggests otherwise.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.

No I brought up Darur because you did so. I could give a shit about that issue. We have no dog in that hunt.

[quote]Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.[/ quote] Damm, I called you names? where?

Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.

Well that is certainly different from Egypt, Syria, and Yemen.

We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.

What total bullshit. We have taken sides as has NATO.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart.

What are you talking about?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.

It is easily blamed on the Libya operation. It was flying there under orders to do so when it crashed. What made it crash is immaterial. Out military is pretty damm good about maintaining multi-million dollar aircraft. We will never know because they bombed the crap out of it most likely to protect TS data which may have been salvaged.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

We achieved our objective, and it's over.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?

I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to your one question, "What are you talking about?".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to your one question, "What are you talking about?".

What were you talking about with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What were you talking about with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?

Maybe you should repeat the question in case he forgot?

So why dont you think Bosnia was a US victory?