Thread: Whose kids would Alfred Nobel bomb?

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi survived a NATO air strike on a Tripoli house that killed his youngest son and three grandchildren, a government spokesman said on Saturday.

Libya's Gaddafi survives air strikes, son killed | Reuters

So, for those who defended / admired / drooled over Obama's decision to use military force against Libya, how do you feel about this? Is this the "hope and change" you were looking for?

(Note - I know that immediately upon reading this, certain folks will reflexively type "Bush did....". That's not relevant. Bush isn't President now, and he didn't authorize this war. And when you're bombing people, it's a war....)

Please explain how this can be seen as anything but a complete CF.

Matt

Go team.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

So, for those who defended / admired / drooled over Obama's decision to use military force against Libya, how do you feel about this? Is this the "hope and change" you were looking for?

(Note - I know that immediately upon reading this, certain folks will reflexively type "Bush did....". That's not relevant. Bush isn't President now, and he didn't authorize this war. And when you're bombing people, it's a war....)

Please explain how this can be seen as anything but a complete CF.

Matt

Actually, my first reaction is to look with suspicion upon the Libyan government source which alone reported this. That government hasn't exactly been a becon of honesty during this conflict.

That doesn't disprove it, of course, but since it would be so obviously bad diplomatically for NATO to try so blatantly to assassinate Quadafi and his family via airstrike in the manner reported, I'm inclined to await further reporting and comments from NATO before unquestionably accepting Quadafi's word for what happened and why.

1. Who is making the decisions which targets to bomb in Libya?
2. I thought the US was out of the airstrike business in Libya.
3. I haven't been paying much attention to this one - Libya seems to me to be more of a European issue, since most of their oil/nat gas goes to the European market - to the best of my knowlege.
4. If M. Gaddafi is tired of ducking bombs, missles, etc. - he can either negotiate or surrender, as he wills. I doubt that Libya can withstand the full military weight of the NATO alliance, even if it's only the leading militaries that press the attack.
5. A. Nobel made a fortune in the sale of dynamite. His horror at the war potential of TNT led him to found the Nobel prizes. I think we've quite surpassed Nobel's worst nightmares - mustard gas, phosgene, nukes, the Holocaust, the widespread destruction of civilian populations, militaries, military material, ports, railroads, transportation, dams, bridges, livestock, housing, factories & on & on through Germany, U.K., Italy, Austria, USSR, Japan, China, Netherlands, & anyone I've missed here.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Please explain how this can be seen as anything but a complete CF.

That's pretty much the nature of war though. Wars are about killing the enemy. What we can't get seem to get through our heads is you can't pick and choose targets like we pretend. When you go to war you are at war with 'everyone on the other side'. That means the leaders, their children, their armies, and the civilians that support them. If we can't fight a war with the full on intent of destroying the opposition, we shouldn't do it at all.

That's not to say I approve. We shouldn't be involved at all. Sadly, war seems to be what we're all about these days.

Assuming that the reports are true then the fault lies with Gadhafi for putting his adult son and grandchildren inside legitimate targets.

Originally Posted by RDK

Assuming that the reports are true then the fault lies with Gadhafi for putting his adult son and grandchildren inside legitimate targets.

No. The fault lies with us for a schizophrenic foreign policy that insists on bombing the fuck out of whatever country looks at us cross-eyed that day.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

So, for those who defended / admired / drooled over Obama's decision to use military force against Libya, how do you feel about this? Is this the "hope and change" you were looking for?

(Note - I know that immediately upon reading this, certain folks will reflexively type "Bush did....". That's not relevant. Bush isn't President now, and he didn't authorize this war. And when you're bombing people, it's a war....)

Please explain how this can be seen as anything but a complete CF.

Matt

What's a CF?

The OP suggests that Obama and Obama's cheerleading squad should be faulted for the current Libya policy. However, the thread title seems to pertain to the Nobel Committee for awarding a peace prize to Obushma 3.0.

Who are you intending to criticize the most Matt? Obama and his cheerleaders? Or the Nobel (peace) Prize Committee?

Originally Posted by RDK

Assuming that the reports are true then the fault lies with Gadhafi for putting his adult son and grandchildren inside legitimate targets.

You might want to consult the great US apologist "O'Sullivan Bere". He might inform you that anything in Libya, or Pakistan, or the Mid-East, or the entire world, is a legitimate target if The Death Pentagon deems it so.