On the Libyan Uprising

Published on March 15, 2011 By GeneralEtrius In Everything Else

This has been all over the news. It had so much hope that Libya's government would be overthrown and that psychotic clown of a dictator Qaddafi would finally be thrown out. Now it seems like the rebels are going to fail. They've been pleading for Western Intervention but Obama is basically fiddling while Libya burns. If Benghazi, the rebel capital falls, Qaddafi will be free to butcher every single person who opposes him. Why do we always wait until its too late?

Comments (Page 6)

Scoutdog

on Mar 21, 2011

Another example of political involvement, this time in Afghanistan: Troops not allowed to engage the enemy if they put down their weapon, even temporarily. Al Quaida/Taliban fighters would deliberately taunt US forces, take a few shots, set there weapons down, then reposition. Who asks there military to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Only the US.

Scoutdog - It is true that terrible things happen during war. I say good. It's not supposed to be nice and neat. It should be so terrible that it is always the option of last resort, but when it does happen it should be decisive. Because so many precautions are taken to protect civilians, and despots are willing to exploit these causalities to a sympathetic world with propaganda, we can count on more of these types of actions in the future. The enemies base of support is now off limits and many don't seem to mind opposing forces duking it out. Personally, I prefer a president that has experienced the horrors of war. At least they fully understand what they might have to ask our men and women to do.

The usual line. I don't have nearly the time or energy to nitpick everything you get wrong here, so I'll just say in general that the kill-'em-all, soldiers-first approach is exactly why criminal/guerilla organizationslike the Taliban and Al Quaeda are so powerful. They feed off of unnecessary force and turn it into a recruiting tool, and they're not afraid to die as long as that makes them into a rallying point for others. That's why the military can never win a "war on terror", unless it learns to value the lives of civilians just as much as it values the lives of its goons.

(See my previous definition of "the military" to avoid any confusion).

Zeta1127

on Mar 21, 2011

Yeah, the only reason I found out how his name is really spelled was an article on Windows Live.

The United States Armed Forces are the most handicapped military on the entire planet, yeah they have some how managed to overcome that and deal with some of the worst situations imaginable.

pacov

on Mar 21, 2011

I'm personally really surprised that the UN authorized any sort of action. Given a bit more time, the rebels would have clearly been wiped out. Can't really think of another time that the UN took some sort of action on such short notice... with the backing of Arab states no less.

Nitro Cruiser

on Mar 22, 2011

the military can never win a "war on terror", unless it learns to value the lives of civilians just as much as it values the lives of its goons.

(See my previous definition of "the military" to avoid any confusion).

I looked up "your" definition. I gather, in short (and this vibe is solely based on your posts for this article), you just despise the military upper echelon, not the poor, economically challenged "goons" (drafted in the case of Vietnam vets). If your profile is correct, I have to wonder how you come to such a conclusion at such an early age. Was it school or family/friends, TV, books? Interesting. Well I can assure you the military does nothing without a civilian saying so. As for despicable actions that do occur from time to time, I can also assure you the military is a direct reflection of the civilian population, for better or worse. Maybe if we had more liberal thinkers in the military, instead of avoiding it in colleges like Berkley, it would be one big force for love spread throughout the world.

Daiwa

on Mar 22, 2011

I can't find the link just now, but I ran across a photo in an article earlier today (Daily Mail) that just seemed 'wrong' - it was a photograph of 6 news photographers bunched up together out in the Libyan desert, taking pictures, from barely 4 feet away, of two Libyan rebels shouldering and presumably aiming RPG launchers.

7 photographers per 2 rebels.

There was another photo in the same article which showed a bunch of people, perhaps 15-16 total, scattering away from what looked like an anti-aircraft battery, reportedly about to come under attack. About half the people pictured were journalists and there were more cameras in the picture than weapons.

Like I said, it just seemed 'wrong'.

Dr Guy

on Mar 23, 2011

Like I said, it just seemed 'wrong'.

Om the surface. it does seem "wrong". But done correctly, it is right. i.e. when journalists are journalists and not propagandists. But the sad fact is they rarely do it right and more often than not are merely unpaid propagandist for their own myopia.

Brianbergongy

on Mar 24, 2011

Found a Great track about the protests...

http://soundcloud.com/king-arfa/tomorows-day

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!