FORUMula1.com

[killem2]

Omg!

Are you pro Gaddafi?

I was thinking the same thing. We can either let them die a horrible death to a corrupt dictator, or we can help quash him, and let them take over their country. Have you seen the interviews with this weirdo, he has lost all sense of reality.

[darwin dali]

Omg!

Are you pro Gaddafi?

I was thinking the same thing. We can either let them die a horrible death to a corrupt dictator, or we can help quash him, and let them take over their country. Have you seen the interviews with this weirdo, he has lost all sense of reality.

Not unlike a certain F1 supremo

[What's Burning?]

Omg!

Are you pro Gaddafi?

I was thinking the same thing. We can either let them die a horrible death to a corrupt dictator, or we can help quash him, and let them take over their country. Have you seen the interviews with this weirdo, he has lost all sense of reality.

Not unlike a certain F1 supremo

Although their taste in fashion is diametrically opposite.

[myownalias]

I feel that it is another war over oil and commercial interests veiled as liberation. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France have no business in Libya; it's a civil war; an internal matter that really effects no-one outside of Libya. And frankly there are better ways to deal with it; for example sending in special forces to take out Col. Gaddafi and his key men; hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at Tripoli, Gaddafi will not roll over; this will end up being another long and costly war!

[FRAFPDD]

Gaddafi has said he's not going down without a bloody big fight...

Because it hasn't been big or bloody enough yet?

The puzzling thing about the prevailing Arabic culture and the Muslim religion is their intolerance of any external and specifically western influence, yet they will turn a blind eye to their own sectarian violence regardless of how bloody or ruthless a manifestation it becomes.

Treading a mighty controversial line there.... I personally think Cathlolics are the most intolerant, backward religious CULT there is. Im part Irish btw, and therefore catholic down the line.

[FRAFPDD]

I feel that it is another war over oil and commercial interests veiled as liberation. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France have no business in Libya; it's a civil war; an internal matter that really effects no-one outside of Libya. And frankly there are better ways to deal with it; for example sending in special forces to take out Col. Gaddafi and his key men; hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at Tripoli, Gaddafi will not roll over; this will end up being another long and costly war!

It could/will be twice as costly in the long run though. " Evil Prevails when good men do nothing" Westerners are the only ones with the power to sort it out.

its damn well plausable that its over Oil. but that excuse/reason IMO is getting a bit worn down. If all these wars were for Oil, there would have been a whistleblower by now.

[What's Burning?]

Gaddafi has said he's not going down without a bloody big fight...

Because it hasn't been big or bloody enough yet?

The puzzling thing about the prevailing Arabic culture and the Muslim religion is their intolerance of any external and specifically western influence, yet they will turn a blind eye to their own sectarian violence regardless of how bloody or ruthless a manifestation it becomes.

Treading a mighty controversial line there.... I personally think Cathlolics are the most intolerant, backward religious CULT there is. Im part Irish btw, and therefore catholic down the line.

I'm open for discussion on it, and I check the none box when it comes to religion btw. My comment was specific to the observations of the Arabic culture and Muslim religion based on history but it does in no way exempt other cultures/religions from their own atrocities. It's much easier to control a population in a closed environment... That's why Kim Jong Il is so beloved by the north Koreans, and yet he's universally though of a bad guy.

[FRAFPDD]

Gaddafi has said he's not going down without a bloody big fight...

Because it hasn't been big or bloody enough yet?

The puzzling thing about the prevailing Arabic culture and the Muslim religion is their intolerance of any external and specifically western influence, yet they will turn a blind eye to their own sectarian violence regardless of how bloody or ruthless a manifestation it becomes.

Treading a mighty controversial line there.... I personally think Cathlolics are the most intolerant, backward religious CULT there is. Im part Irish btw, and therefore catholic down the line.

I'm open for discussion on it, and I check the none box when it comes to religion btw. My comment was specific to the observations of the Arabic culture and Muslim religion based on history but it does in no way exempt other cultures/religions from their own atrocities. It's much easier to control a population in a closed environment... That's why Kim Jong Il is so beloved by the north Koreans, and yet he's universally though of a bad guy.

Hmmm, I think we should keep on topic though lol, my bad.

Wish Germany would take part in some of the show of forcing, they used to be a world beater at that.....

[stonemonkey]

Should have taken this thug out after Lockerbie

This is just irresponsible talk bud.

is it? The families of the people in that flight don't think so.

You can wrap it up like that if you wish, and that was an act of terrorism which Libya was attacked for, and I'm not defending it. What I am saying is that there has to be respect for all sovereign nations, otherwise what's the point? What happens when North Korea or China, or Yemen or and other country decides to "take out" any other world leader for whatever reason.

Survivor - the REAL game...

Thunderdome

Your dungeon becomes a bunker... not much fun in mixing fear with pleasure.

Isn't that what it's all about?

Anyway, if Cameron decided he was just going to stay in No. 10 and shoot/blow up any British citizen who opposed him I think I'd welcome someone stepping in to take him out.

[darwin dali]

Should have taken this thug out after Lockerbie

This is just irresponsible talk bud.

is it? The families of the people in that flight don't think so.

You can wrap it up like that if you wish, and that was an act of terrorism which Libya was attacked for, and I'm not defending it. What I am saying is that there has to be respect for all sovereign nations, otherwise what's the point? What happens when North Korea or China, or Yemen or and other country decides to "take out" any other world leader for whatever reason.

Survivor - the REAL game...

Thunderdome

Your dungeon becomes a bunker... not much fun in mixing fear with pleasure.

Isn't that what it's all about?

Anyway, if Cameron decided he was just going to stay in No. 10 and shoot/blow up any British citizen who opposed him I think I'd welcome someone stepping in to take him out.

[vaptin]

I feel that it is another war over oil and commercial interests veiled as liberation. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France have no business in Libya; it's a civil war; an internal matter that really effects no-one outside of Libya. And frankly there are better ways to deal with it; for example sending in special forces to take out Col. Gaddafi and his key men; hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at Tripoli, Gaddafi will not roll over; this will end up being another long and costly war!

Of course it effects the world, refugees, the precedent set that someone will be able to do this and it'll be ok as opposed to the pretty clear condemnation Gadffi has received.

They don't want to kill Gaddafi, and troops foreign aren't supposed to be on the ground in Libya, the political decisions in Libya are crucially being left alone to a very large degree. These attacks simply try to tip the balance of military power.

Ensuring Gaddafi is overthrown will have massive consequences, the actions of the Libyan state will be completely transformed.

We live in a globalised world.

[myownalias]

I feel that it is another war over oil and commercial interests veiled as liberation. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France have no business in Libya; it's a civil war; an internal matter that really effects no-one outside of Libya. And frankly there are better ways to deal with it; for example sending in special forces to take out Col. Gaddafi and his key men; hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at Tripoli, Gaddafi will not roll over; this will end up being another long and costly war!

It could/will be twice as costly in the long run though. " Evil Prevails when good men do nothing" Westerners are the only ones with the power to sort it out.

its damn well plausable that its over Oil. but that excuse/reason IMO is getting a bit worn down. If all these wars were for Oil, there would have been a whistleblower by now.

But the UN are willing to turn a blind eye to events in African nations that are just as bad as or worse than what is happening in Libya; just take a look at Robert Mugabi in Zimbabwe.

Of course it effects the world, refugees, the precedent set that someone will be able to do this and it'll be ok as opposed to the pretty clear condemnation Gadffi has received.

They don't want to kill Gaddafi, and troops foreign aren't supposed to be on the ground in Libya, the political decisions in Libya are crucially being left alone to a very large degree. These attacks simply try to tip the balance of military power.

Ensuring Gaddafi is overthrown will have massive consequences, the actions of the Libyan state will be completely transformed.

We live in a globalised world.

We may live in a globalised world but ultimately it's an internal matter; everyone agrees that Gaddafi is an evil man like all dictators but that doesn't mean that that western nations have the right to interfere. And it doesn't restore the balance of power; the US/UK has much more firepower than Libya could ever muster, it's just as much an uneven battle as Gaddafi's forces against the rebels.

[FRAFPDD]

I feel that it is another war over oil and commercial interests veiled as liberation. The US, UK and to a lesser extent France have no business in Libya; it's a civil war; an internal matter that really effects no-one outside of Libya. And frankly there are better ways to deal with it; for example sending in special forces to take out Col. Gaddafi and his key men; hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at Tripoli, Gaddafi will not roll over; this will end up being another long and costly war!

It could/will be twice as costly in the long run though. " Evil Prevails when good men do nothing" Westerners are the only ones with the power to sort it out.

its damn well plausable that its over Oil. but that excuse/reason IMO is getting a bit worn down. If all these wars were for Oil, there would have been a whistleblower by now.

But the UN are willing to turn a blind eye to events in African nations that are just as bad as or worse than what is happening in Libya; just take a look at Robert Mugabi in Zimbabwe.

Of course it effects the world, refugees, the precedent set that someone will be able to do this and it'll be ok as opposed to the pretty clear condemnation Gadffi has received.

They don't want to kill Gaddafi, and troops foreign aren't supposed to be on the ground in Libya, the political decisions in Libya are crucially being left alone to a very large degree. These attacks simply try to tip the balance of military power.

Ensuring Gaddafi is overthrown will have massive consequences, the actions of the Libyan state will be completely transformed.

We live in a globalised world.

We may live in a globalised world but ultimately it's an internal matter; everyone agrees that Gaddafi is an evil man like all dictators but that doesn't mean that that western nations have the right to interfere. And it doesn't restore the balance of power; the US/UK has much more firepower than Libya could ever muster, it's just as much an uneven battle as Gaddafi's forces against the rebels.

These our such damning counter-arguments to those points that ive given up , your right.

Although "we" the UN did give China Russia, etc the chance to participate in our war games in Libya, and they declined. So its not a westerner only thing enforced. We are just the only ones to want to deal with it it seems.

[myownalias]

These our such damning counter-arguments to those points that ive given up , your right.

Although "we" the UN did give China Russia, etc the chance to participate in our war games in Libya, and they declined. So its not a westerner only thing enforced. We are just the only ones to want to deal with it it seems.

Firstly show some respect for other's opinions; I respect your opinion even if I don't agree; yet you can not afford me the same courtesy!

That aside; the UN may have voted for action but it seems that Russia, China, Germany, Italy and a host of other countries didn't feel it was necessary to deploy their own forces in a combined military effort, which speaks much louder than the official line of the UN, it's always the UK and the US that are the first to start firing, although this time it was technically the French that fired the first shot, but it was the UK/US that fired the big guns that did the real damage. It's fine that you disagree; I'm not trying to dissuade you in any way, I'm just putting my point across!

[FRAFPDD]

These our such damning counter-arguments to those points that ive given up , your right.

Although "we" the UN did give China Russia, etc the chance to participate in our war games in Libya, and they declined. So its not a westerner only thing enforced. We are just the only ones to want to deal with it it seems.

Firstly show some respect for other's opinions; I respect your opinion even if I don't agree; yet you can not afford me the same courtesy!

That aside; the UN may have voted for action but it seems that Russia, China, Germany, Italy and a host of other countries didn't feel it was necessary to deploy their own forces in a combined military effort, which speaks much louder than the official line of the UN, it's always the UK and the US that are the first to start firing, although this time it was technically the French that fired the first shot, but it was the UK/US that fired the big guns that did the real damage. It's fine that you disagree; I'm not trying to dissuade you in any way, I'm just putting my point across!

mate I was being totally serious! I was well and truly stumped!