Diegetics

While Libya is involved in this, the larger issue has nothing to do with Libya. The larger picture is the impotence of Europe.

For 10 years, Euros have been thumbing their noses at the warmongering USA, but now that the Euros have caught the brown killing fever, seems like they can't get the job done without the detestable Yanks. And this is for a pansy@$$ airstrike mission against a pathetic 5th rate geriatric decrepit tinpot dictator way WAY past his prime.

"Help us, we suck and are helpless!" Go pound sand. An impotent people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -line.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The United States was on Wednesday night facing calls to return to the front line in Libya, amid growing fears that Nato is failing to make progress against Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

Rebel leaders said that Washington should reverse its decision to step back from offensive operations in Libya and once again take part in ground attacks.

Meeting in Paris, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of France called on Nato allies to "increase the momentum" of the military intervention in Libya.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, hinted that the Americans should deploy more firepower, saying: "It would improve the situation if we had that greater ground strike capability overall."

After leading the first stage of the Libyan intervention, the US earlier this month withdrew its forces from offensive operations, ceding control to Nato and its Arab allies.

Britain, France and the rebels are increasingly frustrated that neither other Nato allies nor the Arab states are prepared to attack Gaddafi's forces, insisting they will only help enforce a no-fly zone.

Ok, "European people" are impotent.

Isn't your mighty country still stuck in Afghanistan fighting third world people? Heck, you've only been there since 2001.

Hey, you elect Democrats, what are you gonna do.

Ah, yes. I forgot about your stock response.

There already is an Europe thread. I will stick to that one.

I agree that the Europeans are pansies for not being able to police their own backyard without American assistance (ever), but then again, there is this irrational desire by Real Americans(TM) (who tend to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party) to act as world police, usurping the Europeans at just about anything they hint at wanting to get involved in. It was Republicans doing the news circuit who were lamenting Obama's decision not to allow the US to take the leadership role here, usually while claiming within the same week that we should not have been involved, and that argument coming only about a week after saying we were taking too long to get involved.

It's really quite confusing now that I think about it. I'm not sure if you can possibly make any points here, besides the most obvious one (which everyone knows anyway) about the Europeans possessing ineffective global leadership capacity.

There is no military planner in the world that would equate a small scale action to get rid of military gear in N Africa with nation building in a hostile Afganistan. If the US went Desert Storm with just Med assets , Libya would be over in 72 hours. We couldn't hold down Afghanistan like we say we want to with a million men and fifty years.

Well the issue is, is it worth it to obliterate CM' statements, because they are so flawed that they defy comprehension and I'm willing to guess that is obvious to almost everyone. Anyone who could put forth what he did would have to know so little about what's going on that it would take a lot of work just to collect the information to present, and then based on past experience he would just ignore it and go back to imbibing on left wing media product.

So I guess a possible solution is if someone were to take on CM's arguments and go toe to toe with me I could do that, if not we can consider his stuff capitulated on for this subject at the least.