PDA

View Full Version : Libya...What should we really do?



OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 11:35 AM
Should we just go ahead and throw in some war planes to help patrol the no-fly zone? Or should we just be the logistics behind the scenes?

I actually agree with Obama on the no ground troops as of right now. But I do think we should work in conjunction with France and Britain by being more than just logistical support. I think we should have more than AWACs and ships in the area. I think we should bomb all air defense systems and then let France and Britain to patrol the no-fly zone.

If Gadahfi decides to continue to murder his own people, then I think that is when we should change strategies and possibly look at the option of some ground troops. However, I don't think we should take the lead in doing anything with Lybia...we should allow the Arab Nations and the EU to handle this moreso than the US. If there is a time when ground troops are on the ground, then we should just be support, not frontline troops. It definitely needs to remain an international affair.

Just my opinion.

mgsooner
3/19/2011, 11:36 AM
I like the idea of letting France actually get off of their a$$es and do something for once.

OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 11:39 AM
I like the idea of letting France actually get off of their a$$es and do something for once.


I do too, but are they going to **** it up like they did in Vietnam in the 1950s? :pop:

SicEmBaylor
3/19/2011, 11:44 AM
I'm conflicted on this issue...

On the one hand, I oppose these United States becoming involved with the internal civil war of another nation. We have absolutely ZERO business or right to get involved in any conflict in Lybia.

HOWEVER...we should have made that clear from the very beginning. Obama has f'd this up royally and made both he and the United States look weak and indecisive.

I swear, I tried to give that guy the benefit of the doubt and I refused to become party to the stupid right-wing demagoguery but he is so f'ing clueless on international affairs that it boggles the mind.

When given the choice between two choices -- Obama takes the third.

Breadburner
3/19/2011, 11:45 AM
Nuttin a few F-18's and some well placed cruise missles cant handle....Barry's already ****ed this up enough.....

O and some A-10 Warthogs for good measure.....heh....

1890MilesToNorman
3/19/2011, 11:48 AM
Ronald Regan will get'em.

beer4me
3/19/2011, 11:53 AM
No way in heck should there ever be a boot on the ground there it is a civil war and a no win situation.

The US should provide AWAC cover (seeing how the Saudi's are not going to dirty their hands and use their AWACS) and fire directions and airspace surveillance, etc.

The US should move a carrier into the med sea let the Hornets fly cover support for the UAE and Qatar pilots and let them do the yeoman work. The US can used its advanced weapon systems to take out the SAMS and Air Defense Radars.

There is not going to be much to this after a few of the POS migs get AIMS up their tailpipe they will park those aircraft and walk away from them.

Then it just depends upon how much of the Libyan hardware tanks, field cannons, etc they decide to turn into scrap metal before the army crumbles and leaves Mr. G that will decide how long this will last. I suspect no more than a week.

IMO

1890MilesToNorman
3/19/2011, 11:54 AM
No way in heck should there ever be a boot on the ground there it is a civil war and a no win situation.

The US should provide AWAC cover (seeing how the Saudi's are not going to dirty their hands and use their AWACS) and fire directions and airspace surveillance, etc.

The US should move a carrier into the med sea let the Hornets fly cover support for the UAE and Qatar pilots and let them do the yeoman work. The US can used its advanced weapon systems to take out the SAMS and Air Defense Radars.

There is not going to be much to this after a few of the POS migs get AIMS up their tailpipe they will park those aircraft and walk away from them.

Then it just depends upon how much of the Libyan hardware tanks, field cannons, etc they decide to turn into scrap metal before the army crumbles and leaves Mr. G that will decide how long this will last. I suspect no more than a week.

IMO

Schmart ***!

Mongo
3/19/2011, 11:55 AM
Let others take care of the bulk. Let our Navy and AF get a little practice to refresh their minds who has the bigger hang down

OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 11:58 AM
No way in heck should there ever be a boot on the ground there it is a civil war and a no win situation.

The US should provide AWAC cover (seeing how the Saudi's are not going to dirty their hands and use their AWACS) and fire directions and airspace surveillance, etc.

The US should move a carrier into the med sea let the Hornets fly cover support for the UAE and Qatar pilots and let them do the yeoman work. The US can used its advanced weapon systems to take out the SAMS and Air Defense Radars.

There is not going to be much to this after a few of the POS migs get AIMS up their tailpipe they will park those aircraft and walk away from them.

Then it just depends upon how much of the Libyan hardware tanks, field cannons, etc they decide to turn into scrap metal before the army crumbles and leaves Mr. G that will decide how long this will last. I suspect no more than a week.

IMO

True...but if this turns into Gadahfi committing genocide and his army does as he wishes, then I think it makes it more than a civil war.

beer4me
3/19/2011, 12:06 PM
True...but if this turns into Gadahfi committing genocide and his army does as he wishes, then I think it makes it more than a civil war.

genocide is the problem the civil war is another matter entirely, we didn't get involved with Egypt, or any of the others and they worked themselves out.

At least in Egypt they did not go on a genocide spree on their own people.

Now you can argue that well most of the world has wanted Mr. G gone for a long time, and the genocide is just a good excuse to pop this pimple.

OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 12:09 PM
genocide is the problem the civil war is another matter entirely, we didn't get involved with Egypt, or any of the others and they worked themselves out.

At least in Egypt they did not go on a genocide spree on their own people.

Now you can argue that well most of the world has wanted Mr. G gone for a long time, and the genocide is just a good excuse to pop this pimple.


Well, we did take care of Bosnia/Serbia when genocide occurred there. We did take care of Hilter when genocide occurred there.

I am not saying we should step into this because it is a civil war...but we should oversee it and make sure Gadahfi does not commit genocide and if he does then we need to take his *** out.

1890MilesToNorman
3/19/2011, 12:11 PM
Mr G has been put up with a lot longer then Mr O. :pop:

oumartin
3/19/2011, 12:15 PM
kill Muammar

beer4me
3/19/2011, 12:17 PM
Well, we did take care of Bosnia/Serbia when genocide occurred there. We did take care of Hilter when genocide occurred there.

I am not saying we should step into this because it is a civil war...but we should oversee it and make sure Gadahfi does not commit genocide and if he does then we need to take his *** out.

The world says they just want Mr. G to play and get along with others, but under their breaths they are thinking hope we can bomb his *** to allah.

Yes that is the "stated" goal is to prevent the genocide.

But I don't necessarily agree that the US should take the lead on this, support by all means, help, lend weapons, etc.

If this was happing in Canada you can bet your sweet *** that UAE, Qutar, Egypt or any other arab nation wouldn't care less.

This is happing to their own people in their own backyard and only two arab nations have the balls to stand up against it.

And don't even get me started on France ;)

OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 12:32 PM
The world says they just want Mr. G to play and get along with others, but under their breaths they are thinking hope we can bomb his *** to allah.

Yes that is the "stated" goal is to prevent the genocide.

But I don't necessarily agree that the US should take the lead on this, support by all means, help, lend weapons, etc.

If this was happing in Canada you can bet your sweet *** that UAE, Qutar, Egypt or any other arab nation wouldn't care less.

This is happing to their own people in their own backyard and only two arab nations have the balls to stand up against it.

And don't even get me started on France ;)


What about the French? :pop:

Veritas
3/19/2011, 12:36 PM
What should we really do? Nothing. Libya's not our ****ing problem.

But that mongoloid-in-chief interrupted perfectly good basketball yesterday to get his mug on camera. And to take, as, SicEm said, the third and stupidest choice.

soonercoop1
3/19/2011, 12:38 PM
Arm the resistance and make the arab countries we sold jets to enforce the no-fly zone...

MR2-Sooner86
3/19/2011, 12:44 PM
Nothing.

What happened in Somolia? The people overthrew the government, there was much fighting with many people dying, and the U.N. passed a resolution which the United States provided the vast majority of aid and military power. We then were the ones who were given the task to take out Aidid. What happened there? We got several American servicemen killed, their bodies dragged down the street, and Clinton quickly pulled out and made us look weak to everybody. What happened when we left? The U.N. quickly followed.

Since we're part of this no-fly zone with the UK and France we put in 33% of the effort. If they don't like it then we don't have to help. If everybody starts complaining to us we can point to Russia, China, and Germany as they voted against the no-fly zone.

AlboSooner
3/19/2011, 12:46 PM
Bob Woodward who probably is the best journalist of our time, wrote in his book Obama's Wars that the President doesn't like to send somebody else kids to war unless it was absolutely necessary and until all the options were exhausted.
Contrasting this with past presidents some think Obama is being weak or indecisive. I can't imagine making a decision where somebody's life was at stake.

On Lybia we have to be realistic. We can't send ground troops. Two of my best buddies who made two Iraqi tours, have NO desire to go another Moslem country where there is civil war. Our troops are overworked, stretched thin, and we have no money.

Obama basically has pulled a Kobe Bryant here. People complain that Kobe shoots too much, so there are games where he holds back, and the team loses. There are countries who say the US intervenes too much in the Arab world, acts as world police, so Obama held back, and basically made France and the Arab league BEG the US to take a leadership role.

It showed the world that there is no leader in the world, but the US. Russia and China do not want to intervene in another country regardless how many people die. Those two countries have their own Gaddafis. France is not a world leader and not even a coward like Gaddafi fears France.

After being begged in public, and even more behind the scenes, Obama says we will intervene. At the same time, Gaddafi calls for a ceasefire. He only fears only one country, and that's the US.

I believe the US has gained a lot of political ground, and has shown the free world there can be on other leader but the US. I believe the president has played this beautifully, and has improved US standing in the world.

China, Russia and Germany didn't vote against the no fly zone; they abstained. Selling weapons to Gaddafi has something to do with it, yet nobody will criticize those countries like they criticize the US. Germany, China and Russia have a lot of African blood on their hands. Chinese weapons made possible Darfur.

AlboSooner
3/19/2011, 12:58 PM
The world says they just want Mr. G to play and get along with others, but under their breaths they are thinking hope we can bomb his *** to allah.



I don't think France or the pseudo-states in the Arab league know how to conduct an operation like this. France's troops have "fought' in Afghanistan, after the US troops did all the fighting, the French guarded the bases. They have no experience.

The next military who may know how to do stuff like this, is Russia. I have my doubts about them after seeing them invade Georgia. They lost a bunch of guys in a two weak war against another pseudo-state.

Only the US has the knowledge and muscle for such a complicated and dangerous operation.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 12:58 PM
.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 01:01 PM
.

AlbqSooner
3/19/2011, 01:08 PM
Brack interrupted the game yesterday cuz his pick was losing.
Just chiming in.:D

GrapevineSooner
3/19/2011, 01:12 PM
I see the French have launched airstrikes on Libya.

Did their own government give them permission to use their own airspace en route? ;)

AlboSooner
3/19/2011, 01:27 PM
Some reports say US cruise missiles have started or will start within an hour, to take out Libyan anti-aircraft defenses.

pphilfran
3/19/2011, 01:36 PM
I wonder about the exit strategy...how long till we hear about one...better be one since Bush got hammered for not having one prior to Iraq...

olevetonahill
3/19/2011, 01:36 PM
I think we need to sit our asses on the side lines and watch the others play for a change.

MR2-Sooner86
3/19/2011, 01:40 PM
I think we need to sit our asses on the side lines and watch the others play for a change.

DING! DING! DING!

pphilfran
3/19/2011, 01:41 PM
I think we need to sit our asses on the side lines and watch the others play for a change.

With UN backing we need to be involved...but we should be far down the list...

I wouldn't count on this thing going smoothly or quickly...

AlboSooner
3/19/2011, 01:44 PM
I wonder about the exit strategy...how long till we hear about one...better be one since Bush got hammered for not having one prior to Iraq...

It would be wrong and dangerous for Obama to send ground troops to Libya. Let's see if the French and British will send in troops.

MR2-Sooner86
3/19/2011, 01:46 PM
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1927-2.png
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1927-6.png
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1927-3.png
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1927-4.png
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1927-5.png

pphilfran
3/19/2011, 01:47 PM
It would be wrong and dangerous for Obama to send ground troops to Libya. Let's see if the French and British will send in troops.

We are going to end up knee deep in chit...again...

olevetonahill
3/19/2011, 01:54 PM
We are going to end up knee deep in chit...again...

Why i said sit our asses out and just watch
Foe one it wont give the Mooslums anything more to hate on us with and two We can see just efficient these other Military's are with out us . ;)

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 01:58 PM
.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 02:32 PM
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Paris for the meeting about Libya, said the United States supported the intervention. Asked if the aim was to overthrow Gadhafi, she did not answer the question directly but said the aim of Western powers was to protect civilians. "

What happens if no civilians are found? Who has lied to Hillary?

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 02:50 PM
.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:16 PM
It was wrong for Obama to announce that he wouldn't use ground forces.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 03:25 PM
It was wrong for Obama to announce that he wouldn't use ground forces.

Doesn't that require Senate approval? I'm not a citizen so I don't know these things.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 03:25 PM
.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:26 PM
I don't know or care about that. It's just wrong to take anything off the table at this point.

JohnnyMack
3/19/2011, 03:28 PM
I'm conflicted on this issue...

On the one hand, I oppose these United States becoming involved with the internal civil war of another nation. We have absolutely ZERO business or right to get involved in any conflict in Lybia.

HOWEVER...we should have made that clear from the very beginning. Obama has f'd this up royally and made both he and the United States look weak and indecisive.

I swear, I tried to give that guy the benefit of the doubt and I refused to become party to the stupid right-wing demagoguery but he is so f'ing clueless on international affairs that it boggles the mind.

When given the choice between two choices -- Obama takes the third.

I really disagree that he's f'd this up royally. I actually enjoy the idea that patience was shown and that it was through a joint resolution that military action was taken.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:29 PM
If the actual objective is to prevent Libya from attacking it's own people, he may find himself wishing he hadn't made that statement. Besides, if he really isn't going to send in ground forces under any circumstances, there is no strategic reason to let Libya(the enemy) know that.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 03:34 PM
If the actual objective is to prevent Libya from attacking it's own people, he may find himself wishing he hadn't made that statement. Besides, if he really isn't going to send in ground forces under any circumstances, there is no strategic reason to let Libya(the enemy) know that.

So Libya is our enemy? Does that include their citizens?

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:36 PM
The forces controlled by Gaddafi are our enemy.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 03:37 PM
The forces controlled by Gaddafi are our enemy.

Relax, I'm just having drunky fun. :D

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:38 PM
I'm very relaxed.

JohnnyMack
3/19/2011, 03:43 PM
Something tells me anything short of Obama resurrecting Ronald Reagan and John Wayne and sending their zombified corpses into battle astride white, majestic steeds in advance of a couple of armored divisions wouldn't be enough to satisfy the right.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:44 PM
I haven't seen anyone on the right or left suggest that was even possible.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 03:47 PM
.

MamaMia
3/19/2011, 03:48 PM
I was kind of hoping we could stay out of this one. :(

Its all about the oil. What ticks me of is that our politicians, both Dem's and Reps, are so stupid when it comes to allowing the US to drill for our own.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:52 PM
He could have hedged it a lot of ways. There are no plans to use ground forces. At this time, we don't plan on committing ground forces. Anything like that.

JohnnyMack
3/19/2011, 03:56 PM
I haven't seen anyone on the right or left suggest that was even possible.

But if it were?

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 03:56 PM
You gotta admit, that would be pretty cool.

GrapevineSooner
3/19/2011, 04:01 PM
Candidate Obama disagrees with President Obama's actions today.

Just sayin' (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/)


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 04:03 PM
To be fair, we don't know how much Congress knew about this.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 04:06 PM
Kennedy really struggled with Castro but Castro has showed what an *** clown he was by continuing with his Anti-America rhetoric for decades. Cuba and it's people deserved better IMO.


Johnny stockpiled the cigars before he made it illegal for me to posses one though. I didn't smoke that s**t anyway, but he was a chip off the old block.

GrapevineSooner
3/19/2011, 04:07 PM
To be fair, we don't know how much Congress knew about this.

We don't, you're right.

But I can assure you there isn't any congressional action that backs this action up. It's not sanctioned by the Congress and it's not sanctioned by the UN.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 04:09 PM
Hypocrite, or not, I'm encouraged the President Obama isn't acting as naive as Candidate Obama did.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 04:10 PM
I think it is sanctioned by the UN. Didn't the UN pass a no-fly zone resolution?

JohnnyMack
3/19/2011, 04:11 PM
You gotta admit, that would be pretty cool.

I mean I'd ****ing watch that. **** yeah.

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 04:17 PM
I think it is sanctioned by the UN. Didn't the UN pass a no-fly zone resolution?

OK. So, the UN voted for a cease fire. The US and others are enforcing that resolution by imposing a no-fly zone. The first step in enforcing a no-fly zone is to take out the anti-aircraft capabilities of Lybia.

Chuck Bao
3/19/2011, 04:19 PM
I disagree. The UN resolution on the no fly zone came too late, like per usual. At one point, it looked like there were deep divisions within the Libyan military. But, the generals will go with the winning side. And, with the air fire power, the pro-Gadhafi forces turned the tide in their favor.

Now, with the US military getting involved and sending in 110 missiles to destroy targets that I just hope that it doesn't lock the military generals into a unified struggle against the foreigners.

A no fly zone two weeks ago would have been just perfect and they could have settled this whole mess themselves. But world politics doesn't work that way and now we have the US firing missiles at them with collateral damage and loss of life for innocent civilians.

It's all maddening.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 04:19 PM
.

Tulsa_Fireman
3/19/2011, 04:20 PM
BLOOD FOR OIL OMG

GrapevineSooner
3/19/2011, 04:25 PM
OK. So, the UN voted for a cease fire. The US and others are enforcing that resolution by imposing a no-fly zone. The first step in enforcing a no-fly zone is to take out the anti-aircraft capabilities of Lybia.

And Libya, too. ;)

opksooner
3/19/2011, 04:26 PM
Germany. The new France?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/germany-rules-out-libya-military

"Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has declared the country remains strongly opposed to air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces or any other military intervention in Libya.

Speaking to the Guardian, Westerwelle warned the results of western military intervention were "unpredictable" and could have consequences for freedom movements in the Arab world."

sooner_born_1960
3/19/2011, 04:27 PM
oops.

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 06:18 PM
.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 06:19 PM
""This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," President Barack Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001

I dunno, he once would have said that kind of remark was quoted out of context.

oumartin
3/19/2011, 06:25 PM
I dont' care who we kill so long as oil prices drop before I take my vacation.

OU_Sooners75
3/19/2011, 06:28 PM
I dont' care who we kill so long as oil prices drop before I take my vacation.


Smartest thing I have seen you post in awhile! :P

SicEmBaylor
3/19/2011, 06:33 PM
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."—Sen. Obama

Tulsa_Fireman
3/19/2011, 06:37 PM
"KILL WHITEY" - Chris Farley

SouthCarolinaSooner
3/19/2011, 06:46 PM
Hopefully we keep troops off the ground, LibyanYouthMovement has tweeted that these air strikes have caused mass defections in the Libyan army and saved Benghazi.

cccasooner2
3/19/2011, 06:53 PM
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."—Sen. Obama

I'm sure that one was taken out of context.

pphilfran
3/19/2011, 07:06 PM
I'm sure that one was taken out of context.

Senator Obama uses less measured language and approaches the questions with more social and historical perspective than Senator Clinton, reflecting his relatively few years inside the Beltway. Their positions are quite similar, though his answers on the Bush Administration's use of executive power are more specific and forthright: we suspect he is less jaded toward these sorts of abuses.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Sooner_Bob
3/19/2011, 07:18 PM
Something tells me anything short of Obama resurrecting Ronald Reagan and John Wayne and sending their zombified corpses into battle astride white, majestic steeds in advance of a couple of armored divisions wouldn't be enough to satisfy the right.

Like the left is any easier to satisfy.

OUthunder
3/19/2011, 07:32 PM
I've had a couple of drink so I'll state my opinion. I mean no offense to anyone.

I say that the USA give the middle finger to anyone asking us for help. Genocide may be going on but it's not in my country or in my neck of the woods so I don't give a ****. My only concern is the safety of American servicemen and there families. We shouldn't even have a jet close to that ****ing dump.

Let the Europeans and the Arabs wipe their own asses for a change. I'm tired of my ****ing tax dollars going towards **** that I don't give a **** about. I'd rather Obama take our tax dollars and hand it out to Americans who need the help, who are going thru tough times right now.

**** Allah, **** Lybia, and **** the U.N.

God bless the USA!

OU Adonis
3/19/2011, 07:41 PM
Apparently Libya has flying tanks.

beer4me
3/19/2011, 08:09 PM
What about the French? :pop:

Well they just **** me off, and yes first hand experiance I have to deal with the anal breaths.

So I don't like them anyway but now it's "Lets step and lead this" ...hog ****

They have wanted to go back to Libya since 1976 when the snake Qaddafi turned on France and accused them of being arms dealers. Qaddafi just wore them out in the world press at the time and called them everything.

I don't remember for sure memory fades but I am not sure France ever got fully paid for the Mirages they sold them.

Because France sold Libya a shat wad of the POS French Mirage fighters, but France of course was back dooring them by selling to Egypt at the same time.

Also Libya was pizzed at France anyway because France had sent troops to Chad and Zaire they nearly came to blows over Chad.

So the tension between them has been lurking waiting for a chance for France to get payback.

Well because they are such dickless chickenshats, they wouldn't do anything but guess what now???



Wanna guess?










They have the worlds two most technologically advanced air forces backing their azz up so they won't really have to do much and take little risk and take all the credit.

Wait and watch.

SoonerStormchaser
3/19/2011, 08:20 PM
The US should provide AWAC cover (seeing how the Saudi's are not going to dirty their hands and use their AWACS) and fire directions and airspace surveillance, etc.

IMO

Dude...I have to MASSIVELY object to this...and it ain't just for personal reasons...

NATO, France and the UK have AWACS too...let them take the lead.

beer4me
3/19/2011, 08:28 PM
Dude...I have to MASSIVELY object to this...and it ain't just for personal reasons...

NATO, France and the UK have AWACS too...let them take the lead.

I agree with you but I have seen no evidence that they did not ask the US to take that support position or even if the US commanders asked to be tasked that job.

oumartin
3/19/2011, 08:31 PM
So, we over there kickin' *** and takin' names and oil yet?

beer4me
3/19/2011, 08:33 PM
So, we over there kickin' *** and takin' names and oil yet?

Wanna play Slim Pickens and ride a bomb down ;) :D :D

MR2-Sooner86
3/19/2011, 09:02 PM
I've had a couple of drink so I'll state my opinion. I mean no offense to anyone.

I say that the USA give the middle finger to anyone asking us for help. Genocide may be going on but it's not in my country or in my neck of the woods so I don't give a ****. My only concern is the safety of American servicemen and there families. We shouldn't even have a jet close to that ****ing dump.

Let the Europeans and the Arabs wipe their own asses for a change. I'm tired of my ****ing tax dollars going towards **** that I don't give a **** about. I'd rather Obama take our tax dollars and hand it out to Americans who need the help, who are going thru tough times right now.

**** Allah, **** Lybia, and **** the U.N.

God bless the USA!

This.

As I stated earlier with the Somalia situation, I'd rather keep our servicemen safe than risk their lives for people I could care less about.

Does anybody here want another Battle of Mogadishu anytime soon?

SoonerKnight
3/19/2011, 09:10 PM
Let the French have their moment!! HAHAHAHAHA!! Although they will be asking for our help! Seem we are the only one's with a Navy of really bombing the **** out of Libya without using just missiles. One U.S. Aircraft Carrier brings more to the party than France or Britain.

oumartin
3/19/2011, 09:37 PM
Bombs away Mutha F@ckers!!!!

SoonerStormchaser
3/19/2011, 11:27 PM
I agree with you but I have seen no evidence that they did not ask the US to take that support position or even if the US commanders asked to be tasked that job.

Well...let's put it this way...if I disappear from posting here for a couple of days, then you'll know, won't you?

StoopTroup
3/19/2011, 11:30 PM
.

ouwasp
3/20/2011, 01:14 AM
THe US has owed Khadafy a butt-kicking since Pan-Am 103. (Sure would be sweet if Pres Obama were to invoke that travesty at some point) But now we hafta hope the rebel movement can actually come fwd with a leader which will be pro-US. Sure woulda been nice if the Tomahawk strike had happened maybe 10 days ago. The rebs had plenty of momentum then...

sooner59
3/20/2011, 01:26 AM
Don't forget about that Libyan terrorist bombing in Berlin that killed U.S. servicemen....along with like 89 other people. Man that pizzed Reagan off.

GKeeper316
3/20/2011, 01:34 AM
libya has a very long history of supporting islamic terrorists waging their war against american civilians.

we've had to do this **** before. i remember, right after we moved to oklahoma, when we sent f-111s from the 79th tac to bomb tripoli... i remember because one of the guys that didnt come home used to sit behind us at mass on sundays.

**** qadaffi. i hope we go over their and crucify that son of a bitch... or hang him like we did saddam.

SanJoaquinSooner
3/20/2011, 01:48 AM
I've been netflix streaming Carlos this evening.

It's one riveting film about Carlos the Jackel - international terrorist and assassin from 1975 to 95.

http://www.impawards.com/intl/misc/2010/posters/carlos_xlg.jpg

beer4me
3/20/2011, 08:41 AM
I've been netflix streaming Carlos this evening.

It's one riveting film about Carlos the Jackel - international terrorist and assassin from 1975 to 95.

http://www.impawards.com/intl/misc/2010/posters/carlos_xlg.jpg

Yep another two bit gutless coward terrorist who if you read the real story was inept for the most part nearly everything he attempted failed.

Blue
3/20/2011, 11:35 AM
So are we gonna go "save" the people of Bahrain and Yemen, too? Their govts are also using deadly force against their citizens. What's that you say, we are already in control of Bahrain and Yemen has no oil? Huh.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The libs are given the same reasons as Iraq (Saddams a bad man. He gasses his own people) and they don't buy it, but they eat this up with a spoon.

Oil...oil...oil.

beer4me
3/20/2011, 09:07 PM
Oil...oil...oil.

Libya exports less than 2 percent of the worlds supply.

Among all the nations worldwide get that 2%

The US gets very little oil from that region. It breaks down like this:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil



Yea oil that's it I am sure.;)

SoonerKnight
3/20/2011, 09:17 PM
So are we gonna go "save" the people of Bahrain and Yemen, too? Their govts are also using deadly force against their citizens. What's that you say, we are already in control of Bahrain and Yemen has no oil? Huh.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The libs are given the same reasons as Iraq (Saddams a bad man. He gasses his own people) and they don't buy it, but they eat this up with a spoon.

Oil...oil...oil.

Over 20 years had passed since he gassed his own people. Reagan should have done something then!

Blue
3/20/2011, 09:44 PM
Okay okay, how about this conspiracy? Libya is one of 5 or so countries that doesn't play ball w/ the IMF. N Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Sudan being the others.

I really don't care either way. I hate to see us putting people in harms way to get into another front. I don't buy the "humanitarian" angle.

And the whole "he gassed his own people" argument. It's like deja vu. We all said that about Saddam. I just wish we'd call it what it is....nation building.

AlboSooner
3/20/2011, 09:50 PM
There are many factors which have caused this international uproar over Libya. The main one is the treatment of the Libyan people by their own government. I think you could say that some countries have grudges against Gaddafi. They say he didn't have many friends, even among Arab nations.

Like always, it seems we did most of the heavy lifting: we launched most of the missiles. I'll be happy if that's all we get to do. Let somebody else do the rest.

SoonerKnight
3/21/2011, 01:29 AM
Okay okay, how about this conspiracy? Libya is one of 5 or so countries that doesn't play ball w/ the IMF. N Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Sudan being the others.

I really don't care either way. I hate to see us putting people in harms way to get into another front. I don't buy the "humanitarian" angle.

And the whole "he gassed his own people" argument. It's like deja vu. We all said that about Saddam. I just wish we'd call it what it is....nation building.

Wrong Blue! Saddam gassed his own people but we supported him because he was fighting Iran who was supported by the Russians. We ignored the atrocity because he was helping us. Hell I bet we sold him the weapons that were used on his people.

Lybia is a different ball game. We have no cold war going on and the people are being slaughtered. Hell how do we know that the CIA has not had a hand in some of the uprisings. We are taking out his air force and then we will let the rebels fight it out. I doubt we go on the ground at all unless the rebels really get destroyed and Gadafi decides to really go bat **** crazy and kill a whole lot more people.

People complain that Obama did not act fast enough. Well three weeks ago the rebels were capturing cities and seemed to have it going fo them. Then Gadafi starts killing everyone and at that point we decided to react. Imagine if Obama decided to get involved before women and children were slaughtered then he would have been berated for going in there without a valid reason. Obama can't win for losing! Hell people are going to bag on the guy for any reason. But to say this is nation building is BS!! Because you have not stated how we are building a nation here!

Blue
3/21/2011, 01:45 AM
We support this uprising bc we want Libya to be a country that plays ball with the rest of the world. We don't support taking action in Bahrain because we already own them. We didn't and don't support policing the Sudan genocide and other African tribal massacres because there is nothing in it for us.

Thats just my opinion.

OU_Sooners75
3/21/2011, 01:51 AM
We support this uprising bc we want Libya to be a country that plays ball with the rest of the world. We don't support taking action in Bahrain because we already own them. We didn't and don't support policing the Sudan genocide and other African tribal massacres because there is nothing in it for us.

Thats just my opinion.
Pretty much sums it up right there!

Blue
3/21/2011, 01:59 AM
I do support the troops wherever they are sent however. Maintaining a Superpower is ugly, tough business.

SoonerKnight
3/23/2011, 09:44 PM
We support this uprising bc we want Libya to be a country that plays ball with the rest of the world. We don't support taking action in Bahrain because we already own them. We didn't and don't support policing the Sudan genocide and other African tribal massacres because there is nothing in it for us.

Thats just my opinion.

And most of the world has a grudge against Libya! Sheesh!