Metal Reviews

Since we appear to be at war, this deserves its own thread. Is intervention a good thing, guys?

No.

I remember the time when France let Kaddafi put a fucking tent in the middle of the Louvre and let him stay there. Now they are the ones who pulled the trigger first.

Fuck politics and fuck politicians and fuck this Crusade. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Sure, they should totally intervene as long as they plan to do the same with every other country in the middle of a civil dispute. You know, the ones that don't have mass amounts of oil.

No

Definitely a no.

It's more mindless Western hypocrisy.

It's also hilarious that the UAE and Qatar are sending aircraft to "protect civilians" when they just provided troops and police for the suppression of protests in Bahrain.

The latest news is that the USMC helicopters opened fire on villagers during a mission to rescue a crew member from a crashed warplane.

Apparently 6-7 villagers were wounded, with one kid having to have his foot amputated.

It's kinda like the Jessica Lynch saga (captured US soldier).

I also am amazed that the West thinks that the best way to save people is to kill them.

Another stupid Obama blunder. I can't figure out why this POS is still in office

Obama is actually one of the western leaders who deserves a bit of credit in this whole mess. His clear reluctance to get involved and the US' clear desire to get the hell out of it and let NATO lead is praiseworthy - fascinating that the supposed libertarians in the Tea Party have left Ron Paul pretty much alone in criticising this.

As for Britain, I am sorely disappointed that not a single Member of Parliament of my party could vote against this, despite clearly having doubts. If this turns into a clusterfuck I want this Coalition over and done with.

The two main leaders in this debacle are the British PM and French President.

Ironically the French President Sarkozy had met with Gaddafhi a while back and was trying to sell him advanced weapon systems including warplanes.

And even more peversely the British PM recently recently did a tour of the Middle East with a gaggle of arms dealers trying to sell weapons to various dictatorships while at the same time praising democratic movements in Egypt and Tunisia.

I think for the French president this whole war is a push for electoral security. He has become unpopular especially with his economic plans that included raising taxes.

Not sure what the British motivation is - I suspect it has something to do with regaining face after the British Army got thrashed in Iraq. Maybe it's also to divert from home pressures?

Quoted for emphasis.

He deserves credit for what declaring an unconstitutional attack on another country without congressional approval? Fuck the imperial presidency

No. We shouldn't have gotten involved. Bush was the worst president ever, until Obama took over.

We all learned you don't need congressional approval to strike. However without it, he will have to withdraw troops. It's sad that we are in WWI style treaties where everyone is in once one is but he delayed striking until the French did so.

Man Steve finally something we can agree on

Fuck Cameron for selling weapons to them, but kudos to Europe, NATO and the UN for finally growing some balls and taking down a psychotic dictator to protect the Libyan people.

Seriously, fuck Gheddaffi to bits. No sovereignty, no leadership, no rights. Just NATO destruction for his mercenaries.

Have you heard of Nixon or even Kennedy (the amphetamine fiend who nearly started WWIII).

First of all - most of Gaddafhi's troops are regular Libyan troops (especially Khami Brigade which was led by his son).

The black guys we see include black Libyans from the south as well as former Gaddafhi supporters in Chad who were granted asylum and Lybian citizenship after the failed Libyan military adventure into Chad in the 1980s.

There are foreign fighters on both sides though, but they are not the majority.

Secondly, one thing we Westerners don't understand is that there is no such thing as a Libyan. Your average Libyan's loyalty is with their clan. The same thing applies to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and pretty much the whole of the Arab and Middle Eastern world.

Westerners are uneducated morons who don't research these things and apply Western conventions of nation states to others.

Some of the western clans are pro-Gaddafhi, while many others are anti-Gaddafhi. Even if Gaddafhi is toppled. trensions will run high and the civil war may continue.

Thirdly Some of the Libyan resistance leaders are known Al Qaeda operatives. These include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb.

The other thing is that the National Transitional Council (the main rebel leadership) is composed mainly of ex-Gaddafhi me including Mustafa Abdul Jalil who is an ex-Minister for Justice.

So how much blood would these people have on their hands?

Basically on a political level this whole thing smacks of a coup attempt by disgruntled ex-Gaddafhi cadre.

Gaddafhi may be toppled but the men who replace him will probably be no better.

Neither of them had such ridiculously low corp. tax rates like the US does now and neither one of them gave around a trillion dollars away to corporations either.

You might want to read a history book,

Nixon trashed the US economy with increased spending on Vietnam, intensified carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos (most bombed country on the planet), created high inflation and destroyed the gold standard.

He was also linked with the highly unethical Watergate incident and supported the toppling of democrativally elected Salvadore Allende in Chile in a bloody coup.

Kennedy nearly started WWIII with that moronic Cuban missile crisis. If you think low corporate tax rates are worse than nuclear annihilation, you need to have your head examined.

The answer is no.

Western Europe and the USA is economically overstretched as it is. As dead1 mentioned, who replaces Gaddafhi?