TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Libya Situation
Pages (30): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 »

Gadhafi forces firing on residential neighborhoods in Misrata with heavy weapons and powerful cluster bombs - NY Times http://nyti.ms/h2IAmG

At least the discussion in this thread is amicable

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Again, it's a truly feeble point your trying to make, and you keep dodging the the real issue; THE USA IS NOT CONDUCTING MILITARY OPERATIONS IN LIBYA, NATO IS. Why is that important? because it's not a US war, not an Allied war it's a NATO intervention, with NATO controlled forces, for humanitarian reasons.....unlike Iraq, which was the ENTIRE reason it is pertinent to this discussion and WHY it came up in the first place . That covers everything like the money being spent on it ($4m per day at last estimate for libya, a fraction of Iraq's daily spend) the personnel (no US central command and everything that goes with it etc).

Blaaaahhhh blah blah fucking blah. That's right: NATO is conducting military operations.... WITH 35% USA ASSETS. So I guess if you let your friend borrow your car for the weekend, it's really no longer your property (asset) until he returns it to you. I guess if you own an apartment, and rent it out to someone for a year, it becomes their asset and belongs to the renter for that year.

Maybe if I rephrase, it will sink into your thick skull. Yes or no: is NATO utilizing U.S. assets for their missions in Libya? The answer is obviously "yes". Therefore, U.S. assets are involved in Libya despite you saying this:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assets active in Libya.

Admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself with all these slippery ways of trying to change what you said.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That's right: NATO is conducting military operations

At last, an admission, and finally something that makes sense has coming out of your guff hole. This is all I needed from you.

And no, If I'm not driving the car, then I am not responsible for what my friend does with it while in his possession. When he returns it to me and I'm then driving it, I'm in control of it again. WHICH BIT OF THIS CAN YOU NOT GET? You can split hairs all you want, you can try to make some petty point about who owns the planes but it's not going to change the main thing you're so angry about : your buddyboy Bush wasn't able to get in out of 2 wars in two terms, and Obama got in and out in two weeks.

And, that's why this whole thing came up - don't make me post it all up again

So as I said, if you can't grasp simple concepts don't bother responding.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN At last, an admission, and finally something that makes sense has coming out of your guff hole. This is all I needed from you.

Uhhh, yeah but I never argued that NATO was calling the shots! It's about ASSETS. You say there are no USA assets, and won't admit that is not correct. Look, are you going to answer the "yes or no" question? Are there US assets in Libya right now... not who's directing the missions, not who's making the decisions... ASSETS. Tell me right now, "No there are no US assets in Libya."

quote:

And no, If I'm not driving the car, then I am not responsible for what my friend does with it while in his possession. When he returns it to me and I'm then driving it, I'm in control of it again. WHICH BIT OF THIS CAN YOU NOT GET?

This is unbelievable. Look- I am not arguing who is responsible for what happens to the fucking car. IS THE CAR YOUR ASSET; YOUR PROPERTY even when a friend is borrowing it and controlling its use? What about this do YOU not get? There is a serious lapse in your ability to understand the fundamental question I am asking.

quote:

You can split hairs all you want, you can try to make some petty point about who owns the planes but it's not going to change the main thing you're so angry about : your buddyboy Bush wasn't able to get in out of 2 wars in two terms, and Obama got in and out in two weeks.

Who owns the planes, i.e. ASSETS is central to my whole fucking argument! You're the one who said there were zero US assets in Libya... all of a sudden that doesn't matter right? What a coincidence. And for the record, Bush was never my buddy-boy. You can create all the straw men you like.

This conversation is boring.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby This conversation is boring.

+1
You guys have been arguing the same stupid points (on both sides) for days. Why don't you just agree to disagree so the17sss can go JO to Ann Coulter's latest book

You guys are both being idiotic, stupid, and childish.


And yet you are both at least 9,000 times smarter than srussell0018.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews You guys are both being idiotic, stupid, and childish. And yet you are both at least 9,000 times smarter than srussell0018.

Remember when you knew me, like, at all? Me neither.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews You guys are both being idiotic, stupid, and childish. And yet you are both at least 9,000 times smarter than srussell0018.

I love the FFAR on the back of trucks... Ghetto-blaster!

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I love the FFAR on the back of trucks... Ghetto-blaster!

Yeah, it's pretty Beyond Thunderdome.

Libyan rebel military leader Abdel-Fattah Younis adjusts an opposition flag on the podium, as he speaks to the media at a hotel in Benghazi, Libya Tuesday, April 5, 2011. Younis lashed out at NATO saying it's not doing enough to protect opponents of Moammar Gadhafi and complained about what he said is an overly bureaucratic process that means NATO takes hours to respond to events on the battlefield.

The front line between Libyan government forces (L) and civilian insurgents (foreground) is seen on Tripoli Street in downtown Misrata April 18, 2011 in Misrata, Libya.












A Libyan rebel celebrates in relief after crossing Tripoli street (R), a hub of heavy clashes with Moamer Kadhafi loyalist fighters, in the centre of Misrata, 120 kms (75 miles) east of Tripoli, on April 18, 2011 as a doctor reported 1,000 people killed in six weeks of fighting in the besieged city.

Lol, had to post this as more and more of the truth is coming to the mainstream press.

Enjoy

quote:

Dossier made case for Iraq war, general reveals. A BRITISH military intelligence official says the discredited British dossier on Iraq's weapons program was drawn up ''to make the case for war''. ''We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence, the wording was developed with care.''

Wait for it......

quote:

MI6 also noted that the ''prize'' of toppling Saddam Hussein could be ''new security to oil supplies''. Government officials has always denied that oil was ever a motive for invading Iraq.

Source and full story (although also on the BBC site and news yesterday).

http://www.smh.com.au/world/dossier...513-1emea.html

if there was ever a reason to invade a country for oil reserves, now is the time. 2003 crude prices were relatively depressed compared to now.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit if there was ever a reason to invade a country for oil reserves, now is the time. 2003 crude prices were relatively depressed compared to now.

High oil prices are a good thing in the long run. I hope disruptions continue.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby High oil prices are a good thing in the long run. I hope disruptions continue.

Now you're an oil expert?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Now you're an oil expert?

How are they not a good thing over all? It is better to start forcing people to begin the transition to alternative fuels and means of transport NOW than it is when oil is physically gone and you do not have a transitional period, or a safety net of being able to fall back on oil by adjusting the price through exploiting reserves.

High prices now will save us from disaster when oil prices can never come down.

If you want to claim I am an expert, then by all means, but frankly I do not agree with you, even in jest.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby How are they not a good thing over all? It is better to start forcing people to begin the transition to alternative fuels and means of transport NOW than it is when oil is physically gone and you do not have a transitional period, or a safety net of being able to fall back on oil by adjusting the price through exploiting reserves. High prices now will save us from disaster when oil prices can never come down. If you want to claim I am an expert, then by all means, but frankly I do not agree with you, even in jest.

you're a dumb fucking idiot that understands zero about how the market works. you can't force new technology to happen and become more efficient than what we currently have. alternative energy is constantly being worked on, and the fucking oil companies themselves fund about 40% of that technology development. if we choke off supply now, it will send the entire economy deeper into peril, and investment in alternative energy will slow the fuck down with it. there is nothing remotely close to the cost and efficiency of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. market forces are at work and will evolve accordingly... a government can't just deem something to be and magically make it happen to their preferences. your stupid fantasies of "soon to be" green energy being possible is just that- a fantasy. stick to computer programing and all-you-can-eat buffet discussions... you know, your specialties.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.