- At 02:47am on 23rd Mar 2011, escapedfromny wrote:
- 63. At 03:04am on 23rd Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote: .......I wonder if our western "leaders" are capable of looking at themselves thru the eyes of the people they represent......
..........would they be humble enough to see themselves as they truly are, not how they "wish" themselves to be seen or packaged or sold to us
........or as I suspect....do they live if abject fear of that fateful day when we will seem them as they truly are....
- 64. At 03:11am on 23rd Mar 2011, Chris-TH wrote: As far as I remember the UN 1973 Resolution starts with a demand for an immediate ceasefire. To me that means that BOTH parties stop their military actions. I do I understand English that bad?
After the French took out the forces outside Benghazi, the remaining troops fell back, out of range of Benghazi. That was followed by a 100+ Km advance of the rebel forces. Are they also not in violation of the UN resolution?
I got a very simple logic:
If the Loyalist forces fires into a city, they end up killing civilians. The same thing happens if the Rebels do the same. (unless the Rebels have been armed with weapons that can distinguish between civilians and soldiers).
- 65. At 03:32am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote: Chris-TH (64), either you do "understand English that bad" or you are being disingenuous. Resolution 1973 is a demand made upon the Libyan authorities by the United Nations.
- 66. At 03:32am on 23rd Mar 2011, benjaminohk wrote: Yet another astonishing piece of propaganda under the guise of journalism. The BBC's coverage of this war is shocking. I'm just wondering how far down the slippery slope Mark Mardell and Jonathan Marcus will go in trying to justify this ridiculous conflict. My respect for the BBC has been reduced to the size of a wafer-thin mint and someone is nibbling at the corners.
- 67. At 03:45am on 23rd Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote: 64. At 03:11am on 23rd Mar 2011, Chris-TH wrote:
......If the Loyalist forces fires into a city, they end up killing civilians. The same thing happens if the Rebels do the same. (unless the Rebels have been armed with weapons that can distinguish between civilians and soldiers).
----------------------------------------------
....I was wonder the same thing...
They must have the same technology we have on our bullets and missles that can tell who is breaking the UN resolution and who isn't....but how did guys in flip-flops and living in tents get their hands on our billion dollar research...again??????
I need to have a little talk with our security people about this =]
this like trying to be a cop in the middle of a gang war.....at 20,000 feet....not a good plan....It's not a good plan to be at ground level either if you want the truth of it....
..........so what is the STRATEGY again?...............
So far I'm getting:....We are in Libya to enforce an unenforceable UN resolution cobbled together in the middle of night by the "B Team" state department beaucrats over a bottle of Southern Comfort and days old Subway sandwiches...with no input from the military on workability, logistics, time schedules or realistic capabilities.....
......Is anyone else buying what they are selling?.........
"I was born at night....but not LAST night...."
- 68. At 03:58am on 23rd Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote: 65. At 03:32am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote:
Chris-TH (64), either you do "understand English that bad" or you are being disingenuous. Resolution 1973 is a demand made upon the Libyan authorities by the United Nations.
------------------------------------
Brother...come on....
Are you saying civilians killed by the "rebels" are ok...but killing by the "loyalist" are not....AND we know the difference........at 20,000 feet no less......We have magic bullets that know the difference?.........
Come on brother.....a skunk still stinks if you call it a rose....a UN resolution doesn't make anything automatically good, right or just....
....You've got to keep your critical thinking cap on at all times...Just because it's "your guy" leading the charge...there is no guarantee his name isn't Pickett....
...Just pretend this is Bush's policy...what would your reaction be?......Be honest....would you be as forgiving and non-critical?...would you be bending over backwards to award credit to an obviously non serious short-term political ploy?
...remeber...be honest with yourself...You have to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.....
اخبار,دهب,سياسه,نجوم,فن,مشاهير.حوادث الفنانين,قضايا ونقاشات
صفحات
الأربعاء، 23 مارس 2011
escapedfromny wrote
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
"There is, after all, no contradiction in the White House position that the UN-sanctioned military mission is restricted to protecting civilians but that the longer-term, broader political aim is to remove Col Muammar Gaddafi."
So it IS OK to kill civilians in the vicinity of Gaddafi?
Or is it OK to attack Gaddafi's forces if they are killing civilians in his immediate control? Or are we only to keep him from killing civilians in Benghazi?
And why is it bad only to kill this certain population of civilians? Do they have some sort of special merit that we have not been told about? Do they have some sort of mysterious force that other civilians, in places like Pakistan and Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe and China and North Korea don't have?
Let's face it - Kim has killed far more people in his country than Gaddafi has. Yet the UN does not seem interested in stopping THAT set of mass murders. Maybe Obama and his European Pals don't mind a few million North Koreans being butchered. It's not as if the BBC can get in there and broadcast video.
Heck, just last year, Russia killed lots of Georgians, and not a peep from Obama about caring for those civilians. I guess Georgians (except those in Atlanta) are not worth as much as Libyan civilians.