Thought provoking question

[alwaysgrowing]

In the NY Times today, they quote a letter from Qaddafi to Obama that states, "We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling Am,rican cities with the power of weapons?Tell me how you would behave so I may follow your example?"


Our reports say he is destroying his own people, not Al Qaeda. We say we are fighting for their freedom. What if he is fighting Al Qaeda, but we are helping overthrow him, the put down the resistance, in order to install our own puppet government. Or maybe we already have a puppet government in place ready to be installled.

Basically, how do we know what we hear from our journalists is more true than what his country, other Egypt, or Iran, etc?

[Mr I]

I think if he was confronting Al Queda he would have said so in the first instance and got help from the other countries. There may well be A Queda factions now trying to fill the percieved forthcoming vacum or influence the opposition and get intwined with them but that is not the essance of the opposition against Qaddafi

[alwaysgrowing]

I think if he was confronting Al Queda he would have said so in the first instance and got help from the other countries. There may well be A Queda factions now trying to fill the percieved forthcoming vacum or influence the opposition and get intwined with them but that is not the essance of the opposition against Qaddafi

I agree Qaddafi is likely being manipulative and attempting to play to fears. I guess my question is more general.

For example Mr. I, lets hypothetically place the US and the UK at odds. The NY Times writes an article on the disagreement, as does the The Times in the UK. How can one assume that one article contains more veracity than the other. Further, how can we not assume that the truth lies somewhere between the two perspectives?

[Mr I]

We know the subject, Quadafi has a history of deceat

[BEAST]

Qaddafi needs to show hard proof if he really is fighting al queda. Like their regional head leader or some important intel. We can not take his word for it.

[Mr I]

Here's a question;

Does the flight exclusion pacify or indeed prolong the civil war?

America claims that Nagasaki and Hiroshima actually saved lives in the end, so why are we stoppin an air campaign by quadafi that would have brought a swift surrender of the opposition?

[alwaysgrowing]

Here's a question;

Does the flight exclusion pacify or indeed prolong the civil war?

America claims that Nagasaki and Hiroshima actually saved lives in the end, so why are we stoppin an air campaign by quadafi that would have brought a swift surrender of the opposition?

Countries, IMO, are analogous to humans. We may preach community and society, but in the end, self preservation and power influence decisions. So we act accordingly to help our bloodlines continue, preferably at the top of the food chain.

[Bouncer]

the usa will control the whole of the middle east in due time.

and the british and french will follow along and do what the fuck we tell them to do!

[Mr I]

Countries, IMO, are analogous to humans. We may preach community and society, but in the end, self preservation and power influence decisions. So we act accordingly to help our bloodlines continue, preferably at the top of the food chain.

There's an answer to my question, even an opinion response but that sure as hell isn't it! get on topic bro

[Scrumhalf]

Here's a question;

America claims that Nagasaki and Hiroshima actually saved lives in the end, so why are we stoppin an air campaign by quadafi that would have brought a swift surrender of the opposition?

Because total war is politically unacceptable in today's world. You can't firebomb a city today regardless of what the scope of the war is, whereas it was perfectly ok in WWII.

[Mr I]

Because total war is politically unacceptable in today's world. You can't firebomb a city today regardless of what the scope of the war is, whereas it was perfectly ok in WWII.

Fair enough, unless you are Isreal apparently:agreed:

This does leave a problem though and this thing could well drag out for a long time and be very costly.

[alwaysgrowing]

There's an answer to my question, even an opinion response but that sure as hell isn't it! get on topic bro

I could have been clearer. If we allowed the air attacks to continue, the war would end quickly. But not in the way the American government would like So we are stopping the air attacks by Libya against the rebels which will prolong the war and likely cause more death because it suits our needs. Hence my previous answer on survival and power. Had the rebels been bombing the hell out of Qaddafi, we would not have intervened