Comments:US President Obama considering supplying arms to Libyan rebels

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

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.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Wrong use of term "rebel"1811:07, 19 April 2011
Comments from feedback form - "So how is this "change" from R..."304:07, 10 April 2011
Arms304:55, 5 April 2011
Comments from feedback form - "Awesome"019:58, 31 March 2011

Wrong use of term "rebel"

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.

Nolween (talk)10:17, 31 March 2011

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).

203.219.209.183 (talk)12:21, 31 March 2011

The Rebel alliances was a band of alien loving terrorist!

75.74.54.31 (talk)14:53, 31 March 2011
 

I kinda agree with Nolween. We don't know who will win; calling them rebels seems to imply that they won't. (Guy Fawkes's a rebel; Robespierre's a revolutionary.) Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Kayau (talk · contribs)15:00, 31 March 2011

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)

24.159.24.36 (talk)17:31, 31 March 2011

"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.

70.244.104.144 (talk)01:26, 1 April 2011
 

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.

Kayau (talk · contribs)09:52, 1 April 2011

I'm not sure why 'rebel' implies they will lose. They are rebelling against the status quo of the last ~40 years. That makes them rebels.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)12:22, 1 April 2011

It just sounds that way. People who lose are called 'rebels', while those who win are called 'revolutionaries'. You can't call Washington a rebel.

Kayau (talk · contribs)03:52, 3 April 2011
 
 
 

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.

76.194.215.20 (talk)04:48, 5 April 2011
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "So how is this "change" from R..."

So how is this "change" from Reagan or Bush?

155.101.185.186 (talk)16:57, 31 March 2011

Change for worse.

At least Reagan and Bush weren't lying.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)15:58, 1 April 2011

But it's still all unconstitutional. That didn't change.

76.194.215.20 (talk)04:50, 5 April 2011

It's double-unconstitutional when he wasn't born here!!!

24.159.24.36 (talk)04:07, 10 April 2011
 
 
 

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

207.161.47.21 (talk)03:15, 1 April 2011

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.

220.255.1.108 (talk)12:27, 1 April 2011

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.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)15:56, 1 April 2011

Really? Brainwashing is not working in Wisconsin, Ohio and a growing number of other states.

I don't think Obama's astroturf election campaign will work either.

76.194.215.20 (talk)04:55, 5 April 2011
 
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "Awesome"

Awesome

Nano9teen (talk)19:58, 31 March 2011