Seeking Alpha

Responding to news the UNSC has scheduled a vote on a resolution authorizing military force,...

Responding to news the UNSC has scheduled a vote on a resolution authorizing military force, Libya threatens to retaliate with attacks on both civilian and military targets, including air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean.
From other sites
Comments (11)
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (907) | Send Message
     
    um yeah, Libya, that's probably not the way to go here.
    17 Mar 2011, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • TKO
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    I suppose Libya could try... but I highly doubt they'd even get remotely close enough to any "military targets" before they are intercepted and annihilated on the spot.
    17 Mar 2011, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3533) | Send Message
     
    Let's continue to deal logically and reasonably with this madman. :-(
    17 Mar 2011, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • TKO
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    There's something wrong with that sentence.
    17 Mar 2011, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2216) | Send Message
     
    I suppose US fighter pilots will get some air to air combat practice.
    17 Mar 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
     
    bascially I'm not in favor of intervention. Military aid yes. However if this madman holds good to his promise of attacking civilian and maritime targets. I would blow the idiot off the face of the earth. If we don't have the air power to do it we should tuck our tail between our legs and shut up. Where's Ronnie when you need him.
    17 Mar 2011, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (907) | Send Message
     
    maybe that's the strategy, provoke him into those threats to "legitimize" an attack
    17 Mar 2011, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3398) | Send Message
     
    The Obama administration has made it clear. They aren't going to provide a no-fly zone. There isn't another nation or group of nations including NATO(less US involvement) both capable and willing to do it without the US. So what are they voting on?
    17 Mar 2011, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Wilky
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    I agree about taking out the idiot, but let's do it in a covert way, he still appears in public with all his scripted, cheering, enforced supporters. Hell, if someone can shoot the presidents on American soil, surely we have someone that can take this guy out in, what is almost, a third world country. Stop wasting money and young men's lives on conventional invasions. They're not damn well working anyway.
    17 Mar 2011, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (907) | Send Message
     
    we're closing in on 50 years since a us president was taken out by gunman, and I'd think the number of looney toons with guns has not gone down any over these years.

     

    if you have enough money and power you can insulate yourself.
    18 Mar 2011, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • Wilky
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Taken out yes, taken down no. Remember President Reagan? Anyway, invading these countries does not work. "Bin Lid" is still running around far eastern borders after how many years of conventional warfare? And, are we winning? Did we win in Iraq? It's time to either take out evil dictators covertly or simply mind our own business.
    18 Mar 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs