What's new
By:

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

One Brow said:
Who has called for the ouster of Ghadaffi, besides the rebels? You can't even argue honestly, so you rely on hypothetical ouster calls to condemn real-word activities. There are certainly various scenarios in which NATO could withdraw without Ghadaffi being ousted, not all of them being a failure on NATOs part to protect civilians.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x1e30_wyLk
 
An ouster is removing someone against their volition, but you can leave of your own volition. I'm not surprised you provided evidence of a call for the second as a call for the first, but it is not proof of the first. Where is the call to oust Ghadaffi, is he refuses to recognize what Obama says he must do?
 
One Brow said:
An ouster is removing someone against their volition, but you can leave of your own volition. I'm not surprised you provided evidence of a call for the second as a call for the first, but it is not proof of the first. Where is the call to oust Ghadaffi, is he refuses to recognize what Obama says he must do?
Click to expand...

ummm....what?
 
Millsapa said:
ummm....what?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that wasn't the clearest thing, but... I think the main point of what he just said is that Obama never called for Ghadaffi to be ousted. He was very careful to use words like "sanctions" etc. OneBrow isn't surprised that you would assume Obama's call for air support or sanctions against the Libyan government meant that we intend to oust Ghadaffi. We still have an opportunity to withdraw from Libya, and this doesn't fall into the category of "indefinite war that we have no real way out of" like Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not too surprised you made that assumption either. I originally thought you were often joking when I first began to read the general discussion section, because you take things so out of context that it seems as if you are trying to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Onebrow: If that isn't what you meant, I apologize for putting words in your mouth (even more figuratively than that statement is usually used). If that isn't what you meant, it is definitely what I mean.
 
Also in addition to that, when Obama says Ghadaffi "must leave" that is different than him saying the United States should militarily force him to leave.
 
Agoxlea said:
Also in addition to that, when Obama says Ghadaffi "must leave" that is different than him saying the United States should militarily force him to leave.
Click to expand...

Okay so when Obama says Ghadaffi "must leave" that doesn't equal "calling for an ouster?"
 
Millsapa said:
Okay so when Obama says Ghadaffi "must leave" that doesn't equal "calling for an ouster?"
Click to expand...

That equals saying he's a bad guy, we want him gone, we will impose sanctions if he doesn't leave, and be very happy if he is ousted by the rebels. It does not equal calling for our allies of another military force for oust him. It doesn't equal stating our intentions to oust him ourself. I believe it was already clear that the rebels intended to oust Ghadaffi, so it isn't like he is calling for anything new or radical he is just stating our support for the rebels and democracy. Soo... I don't really see what the problem is.
 
It is too bad that we waited so long to jump in to help the rebels (if we were going to get involved at all). It really looked like they had Ghadaffi on the ropes for a little bit there.
 
OK let's see what ousting really is:

Definition of OUST
transitive verb
1a : to remove from or dispossess of property or position by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity b : to take away (as a right or authority) : bar, remove
2: to take the place of : supplant
See oust defined for English-language learners »
Examples of OUST
The rebels ousted the dictator from power.
Large national banks are ousting local banks in many communities.
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oust

"The rebels ousted the dictator from power." Sounds like what is going on in Lybia to me.

Add to that what Obama said above and what the French president said:

The international community was intervening to stop the "murderous madness" of Col Gaddafi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

"In Libya, the civilian population, which is demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger," he warned. "It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal."
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

So I supposed there are three ways they can accomplish this: kill Ghadaffi, force him out of office and the country (either one of which would fit the term "oust") and lastly "convince" him that he should play nice and step down as the leader and let them all vote from now on. Of course this convincing is being handled through violence, and as we see from the definition above, this still fits the definition of "oust" (by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity).

So just out of curiosity, which of these does the coalition expect?



So next do you want to argue what the meaning of "is" is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top