Comments:US President Obama considering supplying arms to Libyan rebels
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Wrong use of term "rebel" | 18 | 11:07, 19 April 2011 |
| Comments from feedback form - "So how is this "change" from R..." | 3 | 04:07, 10 April 2011 |
| Arms | 3 | 04:55, 5 April 2011 |
| Comments from feedback form - "Awesome" | 0 | 19:58, 31 March 2011 |
The press should stop referring to them as rebels and use the term "opposition" instead. Like the old joke goes, the difference between rebels and freedom fighters depends on who won.
I thought the joke was "terrorists and freedom fighters".
To me, the term "rebels" doesn't seem to have negative connotations. The term is regularly used for the good guys (eg, the "Rebel Alliance" in Star Wars).
The Rebel alliances was a band of alien loving terrorist!
They can't even make headway with heavy NATO air support. They don't have the support of the Libyan people. The eventual winner is decided whether we like it or not. 24.159.24.36 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"They don't have the support of the Libyan people." Eh? Where are you getting this from? I'm getting my news from PBS and Al Jazerra. Where are you getting your news from?
They can't make headway because Qaddafi's side still has heavy weapons and is able to afford foreign mercs, while the opposition is disorganized and only has small arms, some rockets, and some anti-aircraft guns on pickup trucks. (And I haven't seen much of the last in recent news reports.) If they could get organized, they might start making headway. I'm hoping they might be able to get the oil flowing again and buy some weapons on their own, but that's probably a pipe dream.
Just because the rebels don't look like they'll win doesn't mean they won't. The media calling them rebels constitutes bias IMHO.
Also, we don't know if Libya will become a true democracy, or a puppet government of the U.S. Either way, it is doubtful K will remain in power.
So how is this "change" from Reagan or Bush?
Change for worse.
At least Reagan and Bush weren't lying.
But it's still all unconstitutional. That didn't change.
It's double-unconstitutional when he wasn't born here!!!
With arms all over the world why should america be handing them out.. u got a big defense budget but should it be spent on providing guns to other nations or spent fixin your economy. or do oil contracts make more money i dunno
The UN has effectively put an arms embargo on Libya. And here you have the US president openly stating that he is considering arming or aiding the rebels in violation of the UN resolutions and International law. The US and the coalition have already twisted the UN's no-fly zone resolution into a license to act as the rebels' air force.
Strange how the people who twists and disregard international laws to fight illegal wars, claim a moral high ground.
Americans think they have a right to mind other people's business. And by "other people" I mean of course whoever their media brainwashes them into supporting.