Posted on 02/24/2011 2:06:43 AM PST by maquiladora
NATO forces may attack forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi if the Libyan air force continues to bomb anti-government protesters, the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi reported, citing a European official claiming the US had threatened to intervene in the violence.
The source said NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy may be ordered to take down Libyan planes, and that electronic warfare against them may already have been implemented. (Roee Nahmias)
Could someone explain to me why NATO would get involved in a civil war in that country?
Why did they get involved in a civil war in Kosovo?
Well good thing we've got Patton and Monty over there to stop them. ;)
sounds like wishful thinking from the Euro’s. Obama is not interested in another War.
But, the is Africa?
The concept of the Caliphate (used effectively by warmongering demagogues like Glenn Beck to pump up hysteria and ratings) is a non-starter (much like Marx's withering away of the state). Even if we believe that the young people waving the flags of the old Libyan monarchy want it, it ain't gonna happen. The Arab states have tried mergers dozens of times since the 1969s. Every single one has failed. Tribal and natioanlistic loyalities are too strong.
Perhaps someone should also ask Saint Sarah why she wants NATO (and us) to pick sides in that civil war.
You've said this on other threads, too. But you have failed to point to any quote where Glenn is calling for war, ie, "Warmongering."
Can you do so now?
You also claim the Caliphate won't happen, although the evidence that it is beginning to coalesce is obvious.
On what do you base this conclusion? Just a hunch?
What obvious evidence? You people waving flags of the pro-U.S. monarchy which Qaddafi overthrew in 1969? You mean the failure of the repeated efforts by Arab states since the 1950s to merge?
?You're right about Beck in one sense, however. He is very good at pumping up warmongering hysteria but he is very, very sly about actually stating a position. Very smart from a ratings standpoint. He was doing the same thing in the TARP debate. He was actually for it (at first) but you wouldn't know it from his rhetoric. I've also never actually heard him say that we should have given tax aid to Mubarak all those years but then I've also heard him, or perhaps it was Stew, emphasize that Mubarak was a "friend" we had "betrayed."
Beck is not the the type of guy to pin himself with actual policy positions he might have to defend later (especially when it comes to foreign policy). A lot of folks here hate Ron Paul but, love or hate him, Paul, unlike Beck, consistently takes actual positions on the issues.
Did you leave out a word or something? This is meaningless gibberish.
But is it authentic frontier gibberish?
You are hijacking this thread and turning it into a Beck Bashing Bonanza. Please stop.
Here is the thread title:
NATO may attack Libya if violence continues
“NATO forces may attack Libya to protect European oil interests”
PanAm 103 was a “gimmee”
there, fixed it
Hmmm.....I don’t see the “Caliphate” mentioned in that headline either. I was responding to a poster who took a postion on that that issue. Did you also tell him to “please stop?” If not, your purple prose about “hijacking” is just a cover for another agenda.
"Beck bashing... please stop."
What agenda have I covered up? Good bye.
Again, did you also criticize the person who first went off topic by bringing up the Caliphate issue? If the answer is yes, I apologize. If not, you are obviously one sided. A simple question. Why not answer it?
She’s not a Saint to me - actually, I’ve ended up with Sarah fatigue, big time.
Thanks! Sarah fatigue syndrome. That nails it for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.