INTENSITY²

Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 02:44:17 PM

Title: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
Reports from the Pentagon and also UK PM confirm that both US and UK Navy have fired 112 tomahawk missiles at military Libyan targets.   French air forces have been patrolling the skies over Libya and been firing at military targets also!

When 'action' like this is taken under a UN resolution is it still considered 'war'??
 :viking:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: TheoK on March 19, 2011, 02:54:15 PM
Kind of. I hope that piece of shit in Libya gets what he deserves.  :viking:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Parts on March 19, 2011, 03:00:39 PM
He should have left before now when he could have made some deal before it came to this. He will not win and will likely be killed in the fighting by an errant missile sent to take out a missile battery,. 
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: TheoK on March 19, 2011, 03:01:42 PM
He should have left before now when he could have made some deal before it came to this. He will not win and will likely be killed in the fighting by an errant missile sent to take out a missile battery,. 

 :green:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 03:05:58 PM
ge Daffyduck??  he is slightly deranged methinks

he said today 'it was unnecessary to ground his air force' and also  'the Libyan people were all with him'

*someone tell the nutter that they aren't...they have taken to the streets and you are in fact firing on them*
 :o
Quote
I hope that piece of shit in Libya gets what he deserves.  
 I dunno if i got it right, but apparently this action is just to prevent genocide.  It is not seeking to overthrow ge Daffyduck and he will be given a chance to resume his dictatorship once UN is convinced the threat to the civillians in Libya has gone away!!!   ??  
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: TheoK on March 19, 2011, 03:09:48 PM
Officially, yes, but I hope the US, the UK or the French will have the guts to kill him "accidentally".  :angel:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 03:15:02 PM
Officially, yes, but I hope the US, the UK or the French will have the guts to kill him "accidentally".  :angel:
:agreed:  i hope so too.  Doubtful he will ever change.  Seems a bit 'wishy washy' really to take this action,  but then give him another chance?


Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: TheoK on March 19, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
He had too many chances already. I remember when the US bombed Libya already in 1986, after Libyan agents blew up a disco in Berlin killing lots of civilan Germans and some American soldiers. Too bad they missed him then.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: lutra on March 19, 2011, 03:27:14 PM
Not sure.. but I think that UN/NAVO are reluctant/sceptical to make it a 'ground' war..

Well, who knows what the detailed outcome of this conflict will be?
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Peter on March 19, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
Reports from the Pentagon and also UK PM confirm that both US and UK Navy have fired 112 tomahawk missiles at military Libyan targets.   French air forces have been patrolling the skies over Libya and been firing at military targets also!

When 'action' like this is taken under a UN resolution is it still considered 'war'??
 :viking:


For legal reasons, formal declarations of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) have been rare since the end of WWII, and this will probably be considered a police action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action).
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Parts on March 19, 2011, 03:36:16 PM
Not sure.. but I think that UN/NAVO are reluctant/sceptical to make it a 'ground' war..

Well, who knows what the detailed outcome of this conflict will be?
  As much as they say they will not send ground forces I am sure several countries already have special forces there Probably US UK and France at least
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: lutra on March 19, 2011, 03:51:31 PM
^
Yeah, most likely.

Plus I hope the Libyan 'resistance' will get stronger again and folks there get the fucker, the sooner the better..
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: ZEGH8578 on March 19, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
"war" is very ill-defined

afaik, the only _formal_ declaration of war, since ww2, was Chad vs Sudan some years ago. and if im not totally mistaken, morocco declared war on spain in the 90s, over some islet, but it was instantly annulled.

like peter said
its probably not "WAR" "per se", but rather... any handy synonym you can think of :D armed conflict, military intervention, etc
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: ZEGH8578 on March 19, 2011, 06:48:50 PM
He had too many chances already. I remember when the US bombed Libya already in 1986, after Libyan agents blew up a disco in Berlin killing lots of civilan Germans and some American soldiers. Too bad they missed him then.

wasnt libya/qadaffi also behind that bombed airplane over scotland was it?
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
He had too many chances already. I remember when the US bombed Libya already in 1986, after Libyan agents blew up a disco in Berlin killing lots of civilan Germans and some American soldiers. Too bad they missed him then.

wasnt libya/qadaffi also behind that bombed airplane over scotland was it?

Lockerbie -  yeah it was.  also, the man convicted of this was freed by a scottish court a while back on humanitarian grounds he was dying of cancer with only weeks to live - but AFAIK he still alive!
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 06:58:07 PM
ge Daffyduck has declared war on us now anyway

he also said the rebels he been firing on are Al Quida trying to take over???
 :screwy:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: ZEGH8578 on March 19, 2011, 06:59:51 PM
ahah NOW i get the "duck" joke :D:D

ge Daffyduck has declared war on us now anyway

he also said the rebels he been firing on are Al Quida trying to take over???
 :screwy:


i think hes spoiled on power and control. kinda like when spoiled idiots tell you some absolutely ridiculous lie, expecting you to believe it, cus they dont know any better :D
(like one guy, on my other regular forum, threatening a friend of mine there to destroy his computer with a "flash animation virus" :D:D:D:D)
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 19, 2011, 07:04:35 PM
 :zoinks: :zoinks:a flash animation virus

oooh scary
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: ZEGH8578 on March 19, 2011, 07:07:03 PM
:zoinks: :zoinks:a flash animation virus

oooh scary

the same guy tried to make me leave the forum by assuring me he knew "MS13", and then pm'ed me pics of himself posing w a gun, or a toy gun, _either way_
yes, that type :D
as if hes gonna text "MS13" "hey this guy on the internet wont stop dissing me :("
and grown man at that...

a had a similar friend once, its just incredible what kind of ridiculous bullshit they come up with - and they do not _understand_ that nobody takes them seriously :D
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Scrapheap on March 20, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
He had too many chances already. I remember when the US bombed Libya already in 1986, after Libyan agents blew up a disco in Berlin killing lots of civilan Germans and some American soldiers. Too bad they missed him then.

wasnt libya/qadaffi also behind that bombed airplane over scotland was it?

Lockerbie -  yeah it was.  also, the man convicted of this was freed by a scottish court a while back on humanitarian grounds he was dying of cancer with only weeks to live - but AFAIK he still alive!

Yeah, he's alive and well. The whole think was just a political kickback of some kind.  >:(

I hope Quadaffi Duck dies a slow, gruesome, painful death.  :evillaugh:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: TheoK on March 20, 2011, 10:39:47 AM
If the people of Libya get their hands on him, they will give him some nice punishment like being fried alive over open fire or cut in tiny pieces.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: odeon on March 20, 2011, 12:33:47 PM
It's obvious that he won't stop unless stopped, so yes, I agree that there should be a stray missile with his name on.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: skyblue1 on March 21, 2011, 05:06:06 PM
horrible situation that will evolve into tribal warfare with or without qadaffi
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: P7PSP on March 21, 2011, 05:08:21 PM
horrible situation that will evolve into tribal warfare with or without qadaffi
Maybe, but his death is long overdue.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: ZEGH8578 on March 21, 2011, 05:10:43 PM
horrible situation that will evolve into tribal warfare with or without qadaffi

truth.
which is why im not gonna monkey-rally around this one, even if i initially support the idea of no-fly zone, and teaming up w the rebels.

people get very idealistic about it "FINALLY! FREEDOM FOR THE LIBYANS *TEAR*"
its gonna get complicated, as always. allready has even, w the arab league turning against the involvement
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: midlifeaspie on March 21, 2011, 07:54:05 PM
Congress hasn't declared anything so technically at this point the answer is no.  Not that it makes a lick of difference.  Who aren't we at war with?

Drugs
Cancer
Poverty
Terrorism
Illiteracy
Obesity

We really only declare "wars" when we can't possibly win.  When we can it's a "police action" or a "peacekeeping mission".
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: bodie on March 21, 2011, 08:15:07 PM
The more i look at the situation i am starting to think  'back off eng-er-land'  like the septic's have.  They keep saying ge Daffyduck is not a target...well if that's the case it looks more and more like another Iraq.   Saddam was left in charge first time and he went on killing his people for another ten years.  What is the point doing all this if you are gonna leave him 'in charge' again?? 

Then, you have to look at the rebels,  what are they going to do?  are they all united? do they want democracy...are we going to take out 'the nutter'  only to replace with a gang of 'rebel' nutters :-\

maybe should get the fuck outta dodge!
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Osensitive1 on March 21, 2011, 08:31:37 PM
Yes, have the same view. Can't fix their problems. It's all about oil anyway, not the people.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Adam on March 21, 2011, 08:40:45 PM
The more i look at the situation i am starting to think  'back off eng-er-land'  like the septic's have.  They keep saying ge Daffyduck is not a target...well if that's the case it looks more and more like another Iraq.   Saddam was left in charge first time and he went on killing his people for another ten years.  What is the point doing all this if you are gonna leave him 'in charge' again?? 

Then, you have to look at the rebels,  what are they going to do?  are they all united? do they want democracy...are we going to take out 'the nutter'  only to replace with a gang of 'rebel' nutters :-\

maybe should get the fuck outta dodge!

Yer - nigh - TED!!!!! 
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: odeon on March 22, 2011, 02:00:32 AM
The more i look at the situation i am starting to think  'back off eng-er-land'  like the septic's have.  They keep saying ge Daffyduck is not a target...well if that's the case it looks more and more like another Iraq.   Saddam was left in charge first time and he went on killing his people for another ten years.  What is the point doing all this if you are gonna leave him 'in charge' again?? 

Then, you have to look at the rebels,  what are they going to do?  are they all united? do they want democracy...are we going to take out 'the nutter'  only to replace with a gang of 'rebel' nutters :-\

maybe should get the fuck outta dodge!

I think the point of the whole exercise is to stop daffy from murdering civilians. I do agree that it is rather pointless to leave him there if seeking a long-term solution, but for now, that part is not being addressed.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: on March 22, 2011, 04:28:15 AM
As much as I think Daffi Duck needs a cruise missile up the rear (He's a Colonel, he's got military rank, he's the commander in chief = FAIR TARGET), it's for the people of Libya to kill him.

Also, this isn't war - this is pest control. They can't even hope to hurt us.
Title: Re: ...so are we officially 'at war'?
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on March 15, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
Ironically, this "war" is what has lead to the current muslim refugee crisis in Europe.

Lybia, acted as a buffer for displaced Arabic muslims.