OT: looks like we fired on Libya…..

[svelte]

I think the real story here is how much the world has come together to take military action as a group. We’ve seen it over and over in recent years.

When I was single-digits old, I went to the theater to see this low-budget film about the world at some point in the future. Buildings where all reclaimed by nature and there was one government controlling the entire world. Nobody worked, but it wasn’t presented as much of a utopia either.

The movie was cheesy and not worth noting much, except I have toyed with the notion of the world heading towards one government since then.

I think it is really true. Step by step, inch by inch it appears to be happening and much quicker than I expected. Think of the Euro Zone, for example.

I doubt countries will cease to exist, but I envision the day when there is one super-gov planet-wide above the country level…at the planet level.

I still don’t expect it to fully happen for perhaps a hundred or multiple hundreds of years, but as I said steps in that direction have been much quicker than I anticipated so who knows.

[ninaprincess]

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

[ninaprincess]

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

[ninaprincess]

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

[ninaprincess]

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

[ninaprincess]

Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.

[UCGal]

[quote=ninaprincess]Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.[/quote]
In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we’re seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/21/bahrain-launches-military-crackdown

I don’t think we’re sending a message to the Saudi’s… or else we’d make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

[UCGal]

[quote=ninaprincess]Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.[/quote]
In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we’re seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/21/bahrain-launches-military-crackdown

I don’t think we’re sending a message to the Saudi’s… or else we’d make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

[UCGal]

[quote=ninaprincess]Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.[/quote]
In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we’re seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/21/bahrain-launches-military-crackdown

I don’t think we’re sending a message to the Saudi’s… or else we’d make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

[UCGal]

[quote=ninaprincess]Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.[/quote]
In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we’re seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/21/bahrain-launches-military-crackdown

I don’t think we’re sending a message to the Saudi’s… or else we’d make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

[UCGal]

[quote=ninaprincess]Air war is much cheaper than ground war. I think this is US’s message to other Arab nations (Iran, and mainly Saudi) that we are willing to take side so don’t piss us off. Stupid Saudis got very mad with the US when their friend Mubarak got disposed and blamed it on the US.[/quote]
In theory the League of Arab Nations signed on to this offensive.

And we’re seriously avoiding the issue with Saudi troops in Bahrain helping the Bahraini government crack down on protesters there.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/21/bahrain-launches-military-crackdown

I don’t think we’re sending a message to the Saudi’s… or else we’d make *some* kind of statement about Bahrain.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Author]

Posts