Allies Fire Missiles at Libya

Evo.lve · Mar 20, 2011

At least you have capital punishment and life terms? (Well okay Australia has a life term but it's not like anyone ever gets it).

Fear Zoa · Mar 20, 2011

Evo.lve said:
At least you have capital punishment and life terms? (Well okay Australia has a life term but it's not like anyone ever gets it).

We never use capital punishment anymore....and life terms are bullshit....we have to pay out the ass to keep those people alive and sometimes we just end up letting them out anyway....

Evo.lve · Mar 20, 2011

Fear Zoa said:
Evo.lve said:

At least you have capital punishment and life terms? (Well okay Australia has a life term but it's not like anyone ever gets it).

Click to expand...

We never use capital punishment anymore....and life terms are bullshit....we have to pay out the ass to keep those people alive and sometimes we just end up letting them out anyway....

Point taken.

Shockwind · Mar 20, 2011

Maybe this is the start of World War III. I hope it isn't. *gulp*

yuyuyup said:
Yay more war, I wonder how long it will last ? ? ? I wonder what Rummy would have to say about that ? ? ? ? Perhaps "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Oh, sorry, you Repubs out there don't like it when I bring up the Bush years.

Are you serious?! You want war?

And I don't want the war to end up in 6 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Bad sign.

shakirmoledina · Mar 20, 2011

i think a missile attack is too quick. Something like bring the army closer with big numbers would threaten and stop but now i think Libya the oil rich country will turn into Iraq

Bladexdsl · Mar 20, 2011

Gamerfan123 said:
Maybe this is the start of World War III. I hope it isn't. *gulp*

yuyuyup said:

Yay more war, I wonder how long it will last ? ? ? I wonder what Rummy would have to say about that ? ? ? ? Perhaps "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Oh, sorry, you Repubs out there don't like it when I bring up the Bush years.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?! You want war?

And I don't want the war to end up in 6 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Bad sign.

against US, Canada, UK, and France they don't stand a fucking chance so let them try they will FAIL miserably and they know it that's why they don't have the guts. keep firing them missiles boys

buffdog · Mar 20, 2011

iran will back Libya and what they got

were are the arabs in the attacks

Gman 101 · Mar 20, 2011

People! You DO realise that they are legally allowed to intervene if the country's government is continually abusing its populous, and thus it loses its state sovereignty (i.e. the right to govern its own people). Hence why other countries are allowed to intervene.

I'm apprehensive as to whether this was a smart move. Sure, you might be helping those rebels, but what about the indoctrinated and brainwashed majority in the population? The future ramifications? It's gonna get ugly.

Nujui · Mar 20, 2011

I'm seeing another war coming about this.

Hypershad12 · Mar 20, 2011

Yeah... This may not end well...

Giga_Gaia · Mar 20, 2011

How can this be called a war when one side don't even have the power to fight back?

Lube_Skyballer · Mar 20, 2011

Khaddaffi was about to win this conflict, but due to UN intervention he is simply cornered.
He cannot win this conflict when the opposition is assisted by the VS, France and the UK. Any normal person woud have given up the fight and just have surrendered, but Gaddafi is a madman so his decisions are unpredictable.
I think he's going to do some terrible things before he is defeated; like firing at civil targets, unleashing tons of mustard gas or simply destroy entire rebel-controlled cities. Because he's just not going to give in. He just doesn't want to lose "his" land and power. After roughly 40 years of leadership he is not just going to let the opposition win.
And don't forget that Gaddafi has a giant following and a loyal army unlike the dictators Ben-Ali and Mubarak. Followers of Gaddafi even gathered around airfields and other important strategic points to form a human shield to prevent the UN from bombing those locations. Sick.

But I don't think this is going to escalate to a Third World War. The only countries that openly support Gaddafi are Venezuela and Bolivia. And they they wouldn't dare to oppose against the UN.

A Third World War is only likeable when North Korea is involved. Those people are just bred to hate the VS and everyone who works with them.

1234turtles · Mar 20, 2011

man this is just the start of world war 3
why do we have to have war

Berthenk · Mar 20, 2011

1234turtles said:
man this is just the start of world war 3
why do we have to have war

Ask Qadhafi, he's being a bitch about shit.
Seriously though, this needs to end, I'd prefer yesterday to tomorrow.

Wizerzak · Mar 20, 2011

Lube_Skyballer said:
Khaddaffi

Lube_Skyballer said:

Gaddafi

Berthenk said:

Qadhafi

Click to expand...

jeez guys, how many ways do u want to spell it?

edit: though apparently they're all right:

QUOTE

Click to expand...

Name

Because of the lack of standardization of transliterating written and regionally pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi's name has been romanized in many different ways. Even though the Arabic spelling of a word does not change, the pronunciation may vary in different varieties of Arabic, which may cause a different romanization. In literary Arabic the name ???? ??????? can be pronounced /mu??am?aru lqað?ða?fi?/. [?] represents a voiced pharyngeal fricative (?). Geminated consonants can be simplified. In Libyan Arabic, /q/ (?) may be replaced with [?] or [k] (or even [?]); and /ð/ (?) (as "th" in "this") may be replaced with [d] or [t]. Vowel often alternates with [o] in pronunciation. Thus, /mu??am?ar alqað?ða?fi?/ is normally pronounced in Libyan Arabic [mu??æm??r? ?l?æd?dæ?fi]. The definite article al- (??) is often omitted.
"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME magazine, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera.[172] The Associated Press, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News use "Moammar Gadhafi". The Library of Congress uses "Qaddafi, Muammar" as the primary name. The Edinburgh Middle East Report uses "Mu'ammar Qaddafi" and the U.S. Department of State uses "Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi", although the White House chooses to use "Muammar el-Qaddafi".[173] The Xinhua News Agency uses "Muammar Khaddafi" in its English reports.[174] The New York Times uses "Muammar el-Qaddafi". The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times of Tribune Company use "Moammar Kadafi".[175] [176]

On topic: We need to be careful about attacking him though. I don't wish for fuel prices to reach £2 or £3 per litre.

Jamstruth · Mar 20, 2011

Fear Zoa said:
I never said I think this scumbag and his pathetic army should be allowed to live....I just said that no matter how diabolical someone is....people will still defend their right to live......why do you think murderers only get a few years here? .....Its because they apparently have a right to live

No matter how many people you kill....when judgement comes....they will not remember the right to live of all those who fell before you.....only yours

You remind me of a user called Pliskron I used to have regular bouts with. You're a little more reasonable though. Everyone has a right to live. That it what I believe. There are very few people beyond redemption.

This is NOT the start of WWIII guys. This is a UN intervention to limit civilian casualties from Gaddafi's increasingly overzealous war efforts. They're not going to let the conflict spread to other nations or anything that would bring about WWIII. They're mainly enforcing a no-fly zone I believe to protect civilians from air-raids. All the missiles fired so far have been to take out air defences, once that's done I think patrols are going to be used to keep Gaddafi's plains out of the sky. I think there are ground plans as well but I don't know anything about them.

nryn99 · Mar 20, 2011

i hope no OFWs are still on Libya.

but this conflict has resulted to many Filipinos there losing jobs and is forced to go home.

Jamstruth · Mar 20, 2011

Giga_Gaia said:
How can this be called a war when one side don't even have the power to fight back?

You mean Allies vs. Gadaffi or Gadaffi vs. Rebels? The rebels don't have much power to fight back, though they've gotten better due to recent military defectors. The UN intervention is to prevent the massacre of civilians happening as Gadaffi overuses his clearly superior firepower. Gadaffi definitely has the power to fight back against the UN.

DeadLocked · Mar 20, 2011

I feel sorry for the people under gaddafis rule, we ain't gonna nuke them they haven't done anything to them. Also no matter how far they go I doubt we'd use nukes, only as deterrents (I HOPE)
EDIT: SP.

ZeroTm · Mar 20, 2011

The missile strikes are necessary. Gahdafi has done things no leader should have. What are the other nations supposed to do? Just sit and watch how more innocent people get killed?

Allies Fire Missiles at Libya

All that you could be.

Still Alive

All that you could be.

SHINEEE!!!

Legend

fanboys triggered 9k+

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I need something to do.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Memer

Epitome of Awesomeness

Because I'm a potato!

Secondary Feline Anthropomorph

desu~

Secondary Feline Anthropomorph

Bi-Winning.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum