or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libya

post #1 of 222
Thread Starter 
I was rather surprised there was no thread specifically on Libya given the recent military action. Perhaps Obama gets his news here, hence his relative science?

So, some questions:

1. Do you support the military action? Why or why not?
2. What should be the ultimate goal of the action?
3. How long should the US be involved?
4. Did we act too late? Too soon?
5. Do you support the notion that Obama should return his Nobel over this?
6. How do you rate Obama's communication/explanation of the action?
7. Does the President need Congressional authority to launch an attack?
8. What do you think the political consequences of this action will be for Obama?

My answers:

1. I do. Libya is in a critical region of the world. Gross instability threatens our national security due to Libya's oil reserves. Gaddafi is also using his military against his own people. He has been oppressing his people for 40 years and supported terrorism in the past. This time he has gone to far. I think that getting the Arab league on board initially not to mention the rather strong UN resolution was the way to go.

2. I believe we should enforce the NFZ along with our partners and stop military attacks on the rebel strongholds. I do not believe we should target Gaddafi directly.

3. Not long at all, unless somehow things escalate requiring a broader action. I would like to see other Arab countries and European allies take over.

4. I believe we acted too late. In the least, we did not explain the delay very well. Obama came off as dithering.

5. He never should have received it to begin with, but no. Using the military against a brutal dictator slaughtering his own people with tanks, artillery and aircraft is the right thing to do.

6. I think he gets a straight-up F here. He never should have gone to Latin America. He should have addressed the nation and stood up to Gaddafi with words first. He should have prepared the nation. Upon starting the action, he should have given a short prime time speech outlining the purposes, goals, etc. He did none of that. He went to Brazil instead. Car-ni-val!!!!

7. No. And this guy's a moron. The President has full authority to use the US Military pursuant to the US Constitution as Commander-in-Chief and the War Powers Resolution/Act. Despite the latter's language about deploying the armed forces overseas in the absence a serious threat (which vague and subjective, obviously), nearly all Presidents since the 1973 act have done so.

8. Well right now, the Republicans are saying they support it now that's it's happened but action was taken too late. The Dems seem to be going apoplectic . Interesting indeed. If Obama loses liberal Dems, he's done. Conservatives and moderates have already abandoned him (or were never with him). Liberals are the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. If he loses liberals, he may was well not seek a second term. His approval will be in the 20s.

Your take?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 222
Given your always fervent support for everything Obama does, I'm SHOCKED by your assessment of him in this situation.

SHOCKED.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 222
1. No. Aside from the moral reasons not to go into countries and start bombing them, there's the practical issues that these things typically work out quite badly.
2. Stay out of it.
3. It shouldn't be.
4. There is no "we" here...there is Obama and the US military...it should not have done what's it doing now.
5. He should have returned it when it was awarded.
6. Don't know, don't care. He's pretty much of an idiot. I don't bother listening to him.
7. Sadly, no.
8. It might set back his re-election chances (I'm guessing he's lost many moderates since the day he got elected, and he's losing liberals who will simply not show up rather than directly vote against him)...but I'm betting whoever's next won't be any better.

It's a bit ironic how Obamapologists, during the election, kept claiming that electing electing "McSame" would have been a 3rd Bush term...and look at we we got: Barack W. Obama.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 222
If I'm going to get behind a military action, it's certainly to protect people in immediate danger. If we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, I'd say we should be doing the same thing for the protesters being slaughtered in the streets of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen...and we should have done something about Darfur AGES ago.

I'm glad that Obama isn't in the forefront though when it comes to this. I'd rather it be a true international effort that isn't US led.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I was rather surprised there was no thread specifically on Libya given the recent military action. Perhaps Obama gets his news here, hence his relative science?

So, some questions:

1. Do you support the military action? Why or why not?

No. For starters, the reasons we have been fed for this latest corporate welfare fireworks display is "to protect the Libya rebels". Obama's lying, again .... just like so many of his predecessors. Whoever honestly believes the "protecting Libyan people" reason must be either naive, been living on Mars, or terminally stupid... the Obama Administration doesn't give half a rat's spleen for the "Libyan rebels".. and isn't going to spend $500 million a day for *that* reason.

If the same kind of heavy manners started in Saudi Arabia, nothing would happen on the international front. That's one probable reason probably why the long suffering Saudi public daren't do anything against their own powers-that-be... they'll be on their own, hung out to dry.

Quote:
2. What should be the ultimate goal of the action?

The goal? What's that? The goal of most recent US military campaigns is to string them out for as long as possible. It's a gravy train for the "defense" sector. The goal in this one? Lets see how long it lasts.

Quote:
3. How long should the US be involved?

"The use of the word "should" implies that you think that Obama's action was the correct thing to do. There is no answer fore that question... since the reason for going in there on the first place was bogus.

Quote:
4. Did we act too late? Too soon?

Perhaps one could mention UN SC resolutions here. They are arbitrary.. some are adhered to, others get ignored .... convenience politics.

Quote:
5. Do you support the notion that Obama should return his Nobel over this?

Damned right. The decision to award Obama who had zero record as a "peace maker" with a "peace" prize is almost as insane as Henry Kissinger getting a peace prize. Nobel has become an Orwellian inverted reality.

Quote:
6. How do you rate Obama's communication/explanation of the action?

A bunch of lying, manipulative, cynical horse shit. "Feel good" and bogus.

Quote:
7. Does the President need Congressional authority to launch an attack?

uh, read the Constitution. (what's left of it)

Quote:
8. What do you think the political consequences of this action will be for Obama?

His big money backers will clap themselves on the back and watch the contracts roll in. Liberals are in a tizzy... for some their "hero" does a Bush, for others he can do no wrong. Conservatives, likewise... many conservatives like the idea of going to war, but not the person who "authorized" it. Libertarian conservatives on the other hand tend to oppose it....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 222
9. Why does every single question from 1-8 relate only to THE UNITED STATES when it is a French driven initiative in a country on Europe's doorstep with European involvement set to continue long after the US duck out leading to Europe taking any fallout in the region politically or militarily?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #8 of 222
Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.
post #9 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.

Again...as much as I have a special disdain for Obama, I think you are uniformed.

The motion was mooted and pushed by the French.

There seems to be a personal angle to this as it occurred less than 24 hours after Qaddafi's son stated he would release details of the regime's funding of Sarkozy's Presidential campaign.

At the meeting to discuss possible measures in Paris at which UK PM attended there was apparently quite a lot of discord as it appeared that Sarkozy ordered planes to Libya without consulting the UK or Arab League during the discussion.

It seems that the US was not the driver here and got on board when it was a fait accompli - if anything this is more evidence of Obama's lack of leadership but it might also look wise if the US absolves itself of further involvement next week - as I believe will happen - and if it turns into another Iraq - which I also believe is inevitable now.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 222
I love the smell of double standards in the morning.
post #11 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I love the smell of double standards in the morning.

You should change your deoderant - I hear you can get strong ones without prescription now.

One smell I don't particularly like is the wafting piquancy of drive-by postings with no content or reference. Kind of like walking past McDonald's - makes you feel a bit sick and you know there's no nutrition in the product but millions are going to swallow it anyway.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #12 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I was rather surprised there was no thread specifically on Libya given the recent military action. Perhaps Obama gets his news here, hence his relative science?

So, some questions:

1. Do you support the military action? Why or why not?
2. What should be the ultimate goal of the action?
3. How long should the US be involved?
4. Did we act too late? Too soon?
5. Do you support the notion that Obama should return his Nobel over this?
6. How do you rate Obama's communication/explanation of the action?
7. Does the President need Congressional authority to launch an attack?
8. What do you think the political consequences of this action will be for Obama?

My answers:

1. I do. Libya is in a critical region of the world. Gross instability threatens our national security due to Libya's oil reserves. Gaddafi is also using his military against his own people. He has been oppressing his people for 40 years and supported terrorism in the past. This time he has gone to far. I think that getting the Arab league on board initially not to mention the rather strong UN resolution was the way to go.

2. I believe we should enforce the NFZ along with our partners and stop military attacks on the rebel strongholds. I do not believe we should target Gaddafi directly.

3. Not long at all, unless somehow things escalate requiring a broader action. I would like to see other Arab countries and European allies take over.

4. I believe we acted too late. In the least, we did not explain the delay very well. Obama came off as dithering.

5. He never should have received it to begin with, but no. Using the military against a brutal dictator slaughtering his own people with tanks, artillery and aircraft is the right thing to do.

6. I think he gets a straight-up F here. He never should have gone to Latin America. He should have addressed the nation and stood up to Gaddafi with words first. He should have prepared the nation. Upon starting the action, he should have given a short prime time speech outlining the purposes, goals, etc. He did none of that. He went to Brazil instead. Car-ni-val!!!!

7. No. And this guy's a moron. The President has full authority to use the US Military pursuant to the US Constitution as Commander-in-Chief and the War Powers Resolution/Act. Despite the latter's language about deploying the armed forces overseas in the absence a serious threat (which vague and subjective, obviously), nearly all Presidents since the 1973 act have done so.

8. Well right now, the Republicans are saying they support it now that's it's happened but action was taken too late. The Dems seem to be going apoplectic . Interesting indeed. If Obama loses liberal Dems, he's done. Conservatives and moderates have already abandoned him (or were never with him). Liberals are the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. If he loses liberals, he may was well not seek a second term. His approval will be in the 20s.

Your take?

The real truth is that the U.S. is not ready for a Black President. Truthfully people are cautious of him and his policies and are hiding behind a facade that they like him which in reality they don't. This man is very mysterious and watch out for him in the long run.
post #13 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Given your always fervent support for everything Obama does, I'm SHOCKED by your assessment of him in this situation.

SHOCKED.

I'm surprised you see my post as exceptionally partisan. Obviously I am not a supporter of his at all. I am entitled to that view and have made no secret of it. But I also indicated support for the operation and stated that his admin working with the Arab League and UN was the right way to go. I mixed in some pointed criticism. You seem to dismiss it as partisan nonsense. Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

1. No. Aside from the moral reasons not to go into countries and start bombing them, there's the practical issues that these things typically work out quite badly.

What about the moral reasons re: stopping Gadaffi from killing his own people with tanks and planes? What are the practical reasons?

Quote:
2. Stay out of it.

That's not an option at this point.

Quote:
3. It shouldn't be.

Agreed. For now.

Quote:
4. There is no "we" here...there is Obama and the US military...it should not have done what's it doing now.

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. This action is undertaken by the US Government. Whether we like it or not...they represent this.

Quote:
5. He should have returned it when it was awarded.

Agreed. Hw would have come off much better that way.

Quote:
6. Don't know, don't care. He's pretty much of an idiot. I don't bother listening to him.

He is the POTUS. He has a responsibility. Not just to us, but the world. Fail.

Quote:
7. Sadly, no.

Sadly? Really?

Quote:
8. It might set back his re-election chances (I'm guessing he's lost many moderates since the day he got elected, and he's losing liberals who will simply not show up rather than directly vote against him)...but I'm betting whoever's next won't be any better.

I'm betting whomever is next will be far better. My dog might do a better job. I bet she couldn't spend $3.8T on doggie biscuits and kong peanut butter.

Quote:

It's a bit ironic how Obamapologists, during the election, kept claiming that electing electing "McSame" would have been a 3rd Bush term...and look at we we got: Barack W. Obama.

Going to have to disagree with that. He's far different. That said, he's kept some policies in place that Bush had. No doubt.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What about the moral reasons re: stopping Gadaffi from killing his own people with tanks and planes?

If that were really the reason, then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not really the reason here. If that were the reasoning this would be happening in a few other countries as well. It's not. This is, once again, about oil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What are the practical reasons?

That these things tend to work out badly. Exhibit A: US fighter jets crashing and, sometimes, losing pilots. Exhibit B: Alienating more people because of our imperialist tendencies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's not an option at this point.

You're right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. This action is undertaken by the US Government. Whether we like it or not...they represent this.

What I meant is that I had no say in this whatsoever. You had no say in this whatsoever. Pretty much no one outside of a small inner circle in the White House had any say. There is no "we"...there is Obama, his administration (and a fairly small subset at that) and the US military.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He is the POTUS. He has a responsibility. Not just to us, but the world. Fail.

OK


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sadly? Really?

Yes...sadly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm betting whomever is next will be far better.

OK


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Going to have to disagree with that. He's far different.

OK

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 222
Quote:
What really stands out as an embryonic Obama Doctrine are his negotiating tactics on the employment of US force, because they are the exact opposite of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and unilateralism. Obama basically said to the world that America will not commit its troops to a situation like Libya unless damn near everybody signs off on it first: the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the Arab League, the Africa Union, the Tuesdays with Morrie Bookclub — everybody.
I have to admit, when the administration first trotted out that demand, and everybody on the list pointed to the next body over and said in effect, "Well, I won't say yes until So-and-So says yes too!" I was pretty convinced this thing had no chance in hell of happening.
Until it did.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...#ixzz1HL2p0N9C
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #16 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

1. No. Aside from the moral reasons not to go into countries and start bombing them, there's the practical issues that these things typically work out quite badly.
2. Stay out of it.
3. It shouldn't be.
4. There is no "we" here...there is Obama and the US military...it should not have done what's it doing now.
5. He should have returned it when it was awarded.
6. Don't know, don't care. He's pretty much of an idiot. I don't bother listening to him.
7. Sadly, no.
8. It might set back his re-election chances (I'm guessing he's lost many moderates since the day he got elected, and he's losing liberals who will simply not show up rather than directly vote against him)...but I'm betting whoever's next won't be any better.

It's a bit ironic how Obamapologists, during the election, kept claiming that electing electing "McSame" would have been a 3rd Bush term...and look at we we got: Barack W. Obama.

This +++ a million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If I'm going to get behind a military action, it's certainly to protect people in immediate danger. If we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, I'd say we should be doing the same thing for the protesters being slaughtered in the streets of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen...and we should have done something about Darfur AGES ago.

I'm glad that Obama isn't in the forefront though when it comes to this. I'd rather it be a true international effort that isn't US led.


We aren't supposed to run the world, but just somehow do it right. The only strange quirk about this is how the reasoning turns on and off for the actions being taken by a Republican. You would support this if not for Iraq and Afghanistan? How does that makes sense? At least you admit you'd be flinging our troops all over the world for whatever itch you feel needs scratched at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

9. Why does every single question from 1-8 relate only to THE UNITED STATES when it is a French driven initiative in a country on Europe's doorstep with European involvement set to continue long after the US duck out leading to Europe taking any fallout in the region politically or militarily?

Damn Europeans expecting Americans to do all the work for them again. Is it really so hard to add your own questions to the discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

The real truth is that the U.S. is not ready for a Black President. Truthfully people are cautious of him and his policies and are hiding behind a facade that they like him which in reality they don't. This man is very mysterious and watch out for him in the long run.

What the hell are you talking about or drinking?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What the hell are you talking about or drinking?

Looks like he's been at one of those Tea Party coffee mornings again....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #18 of 222
ILLEGAL, IMMORAL ACTS MADE JUST

Quote:
Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile? Its beyond description. Standing in the impact area, its as if nothing has ever existed there before.

Its naive to think that something with so much destructive power is unlikely to cause collateral damage. I can only imagine the consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any implication that military strikes are responsible for significant civilian casualties in Libya while at the same time playing down Americas role and the timeline for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced fighting forces it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all under the auspices of protecting civilians but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN Security Council for their political courage, taking action in the face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

Political courage is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income  to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. Thats what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal. The UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which authorized this invasion, expresses condemnation for Qadaffis deleterious actions against his own people

nevermind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which produces only 10% of Libyas oil) where the US Navys 5th Fleet is headquartered with front row seats to the show;

nevermind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

nevermind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

nevermind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

nevermind that you cant just step in, bomb some targets, step out, and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to materialize out of thin air;

nevermind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something is legal, it must be just and if its not legal, theyll pass a law or resolution making it legal and hence just.

This is the way they operate using regulatory technicalities to wrap themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their agenda. As Tacitus said, the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 222
What does Cindy Sheehan think about all of this???

http://www.infowars.com/barack-a-luj...een-the-light/

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #20 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I love the smell of double standards in the morning.



Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Again...as much as I have a special disdain for Obama, I think you are uniformed.

It's called sarcasm. Hmm?

Quote:

The motion was mooted and pushed by the French.

There seems to be a personal angle to this as it occurred less than 24 hours after Qaddafi's son stated he would release details of the regime's funding of Sarkozy's Presidential campaign....

Oh boy. Now it's about French politics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

9. Why does every single question from 1-8 relate only to THE UNITED STATES when it is a French driven initiative in a country on Europe's doorstep with European involvement set to continue long after the US duck out leading to Europe taking any fallout in the region politically or militarily?

Uh, because I'm an American citizen and started a thread that focused on America's part in the whole thing. Perhaps I should have stated that openly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

No. For starters, the reasons we have been fed for this latest corporate welfare fireworks display is "to protect the Libya rebels". Obama's lying, again .... just like so many of his predecessors. Whoever honestly believes the "protecting Libyan people" reason must be either naive, been living on Mars, or terminally stupid... the Obama Administration doesn't give half a rat's spleen for the "Libyan rebels".. and isn't going to spend $500 million a day for *that* reason.

If the same kind of heavy manners started in Saudi Arabia, nothing would happen on the international front. That's one probable reason probably why the long suffering Saudi public daren't do anything against their own powers-that-be... they'll be on their own, hung out to dry.

So what is the reason then? Both countries are rich in oil, so that can't be it. We could easily destroy both militarily, so that can't be it. What is the hidden agenda?

Quote:

The goal? What's that? The goal of most recent US military campaigns is to string them out for as long as possible. It's a gravy train for the "defense" sector. The goal in this one? Lets see how long it lasts.


"The use of the word "should" implies that you think that Obama's action was the correct thing to do. There is no answer fore that question... since the reason for going in there on the first place was bogus.



Perhaps one could mention UN SC resolutions here. They are arbitrary.. some are adhered to, others get ignored .... convenience politics.

1. Oh boy...back to the military-industrial complex stuff again.
2. I was implying nothing. You inferred that. I openly stated that I agreed with the action. I was merely asking: Now that we're there, how long should we stay?
3. Why is that you only seem concerned when the US and Israel "ignore" UN resolutions?

Quote:


Damned right. The decision to award Obama who had zero record as a "peace maker" with a "peace" prize is almost as insane as Henry Kissinger getting a peace prize. Nobel has become an Orwellian inverted reality.

A bunch of lying, manipulative, cynical horse shit. "Feel good" and bogus.

We agree he should return it, but comparing him to Kissinger is...well..puzzling. I realize that you think the entire US government is corrupt, lying and war-mongering....but really? Kissinger=Obama?

Quote:

uh, read the Constitution. (what's left of it)

Uh, I have. Several times. And I've read the War Powers resolution. Obama, like all Presidents, clearly has the Constitutional authority to use the armed forces. He does not need to ask permission before the fact. Also, he briefed Congressional leaders on what was going to happen beforehand. He didn't even need to do that.

Quote:

His big money backers will clap themselves on the back and watch the contracts roll in. Liberals are in a tizzy... for some their "hero" does a Bush, for others he can do no wrong. Conservatives, likewise... many conservatives like the idea of going to war, but not the person who "authorized" it. Libertarian conservatives on the other hand tend to oppose it....

I'm essentially libertarian, but not isolationist. I still stay it's the right action.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If that were really the reason, then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not really the reason here. If that were the reasoning this would be happening in a few other countries as well. It's not. This is, once again, about oil.

Let's assume you're right. Don't we need oil? Isn't it paramount re: our security and economy? Can we have him threatening the gobal oil markets?

Quote:


That these things tend to work out badly. Exhibit A: US fighter jets crashing and, sometimes, losing pilots. Exhibit B: Alienating more people because of our imperialist tendencies.

Bull. One plane crashing does not mean things are "going badly." The military loses more people and equipment in TRAINING for God's sake. And don't give me the crap about imperialism. We lose far more RESPECT when we don't lead. We're America...we lead. Or at least, we used to. Incidentally, when did acting with a coalition under UN resolutions start being tantamount to imperialism?

Quote:




You're right.




What I meant is that I had no say in this whatsoever. You had no say in this whatsoever. Pretty much no one outside of a small inner circle in the White House had any say. There is no "we"...there is Obama, his administration (and a fairly small subset at that) and the US military.

That's how everything in the country is. Welcome to a representative republic.

Quote:




OK




Yes...sadly.




OK




OK

Don't bother responding if it's going to be 4 straight points of mocking me. It's classless.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 222
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1833308It's called sarcasm. Hmm? [/quote]

What is?

Quote:
Oh boy. Now it's about French politics.

So are you denying that it is a fact? Or are you denying that anyone who doesn't live in Hicksville US of A is worthy of consideration even if the facts are true

Or is it just that they are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' so they can't possibly be leading an invasion.

I'd like answers but I know we won't get them.....why don't you just talk about Obama instead?

Quote:
Uh, because I'm an American citizen and started a thread that focused on America's part in the whole thing. Perhaps I should have stated that openly.

Yes...your title said "LIbya" - some people could have been fooled into thinking it was an objective assessment of a world situation....if they missed your name on the post.

You should have written: "Libya under military attack - how will massive civilian deaths affect US economy?" or "If Europe sinks into WW3 - how will Obama rate in polls?" or even "If Europe faces Nuclear annihilation will it affect our gas price for good or bad?"

Quote:
I'm essentially libertarian, but not isolationist. I still stay it's the right action.

Imagine my shock...



Please God no-one ask him WHY he thinks that, I don't think I could stand the wheeling out of all the dust-laden anti-Saddam rhetoric again.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #23 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We're America...we lead.



Or maybe the sheep just follow....you say tomato...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #24 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's assume you're right. Don't we need oil? Isn't it paramount re: our security and economy? Can we have him threatening the gobal oil markets?

Yes we need oil. This does not mean we need to go to war for it. But this isn't really about oil anyway. It's about helping those people who are getting killed by their leader.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bull. One plane crashing does not mean things are "going badly."

Wait until they lose a pilot or two.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We lose far more RESPECT when we don't lead. We're America...we lead. Or at least, we used to.

OK


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's how everything in the country is. Welcome to a representative republic.

Thanks.

There is no "we" here. Don't drag those of us who oppose this action and the many other dubious military actions launch by our king into this. If you wish to support the President's military actions, fine. But there is no "we" in this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Don't bother responding if it's going to be 4 straight points of mocking me. It's classless.




I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree: You support the United States government and military bombing another country for questionable reasons and I don't.

I am sorta curious...let's change the situation around. Let's say that some people in the US decided to rebel against the US central government. Let's say that maybe Texas decided it wanted to secede from the union and the US federal government...champions of freedom, independence and self-determination did what most reasonable people expect they would do...threaten and even execute violence against this seceding faction. And then...some outside country decided it needed to support the "rebels" by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Texas and flying cruise missiles into US federal government command bunkers and anti-aircraft batteries...what then would some think?

Just sort of an interesting thought exercise.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Jon Stewart nails it. Again.

Poor Stewart looks like he can't even put his tongue in cheek there. He just looks like he wants to hurt someone.

The central point, it was fine when you wanted to declare some people with whom we disagree or stupid. However at this point and with this level of doubletalk, the administration clearly must believe that EVERYONE out there is stupid.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I am sorta curious...let's change the situation around. Let's say that some people in the US decided to rebel against the US central government. Let's say that maybe Texas decided it wanted to secede from the union and the US federal government...champions of freedom, independence and self-determination did what most reasonable people expect they would do...threaten and even execute violence against this seceding faction. And then...some outside country decided it needed to support the "rebels" by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Texas and flying cruise missiles into US federal government command bunkers and anti-aircraft batteries...what then would some think?

Just sort of an interesting thought exercise.

Thank YOU! I have been looking for a way to post this ever since Segovius (almost inexplicably) started posting how we (the US, or another country) needed to jump in and help solve this for Libya. What it comes down to is another country invading your borders and basically performing acts of war inside your borders.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #28 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


So what is the reason then? Both countries are rich in oil, so that can't be it. We could easily destroy both militarily, so that can't be it. What is the hidden agenda?

Despite White House denials, they *sort of* let the cat out of the bag:

The White House strongly denied Tuesday that regime change is part of its mission in Libya, despite a statement earlier in the day that characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

><

At the same time, a strike on Gadhafi’s compound and statements from officials in other nations involved in the operation, have raised questions over the goals of the mission.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere in which Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.


Quote:
. Oh boy...back to the military-industrial complex stuff again.

Damned right. Its gotta to be the biggest motivator to start, and maintain wars. Read General Smedley Butler's assessment "War is a Racket"... he nails it. As a Major General (and the US most highly decorated Marine), he is/was as qualified as anyone on the subject of war profiteering.

Quote:
Uh, I have. Several times. And I've read the War Powers resolution. Obama, like all Presidents, clearly has the Constitutional authority to use the armed forces. He does not need to ask permission before the fact. Also, he briefed Congressional leaders on what was going to happen beforehand. He didn't even need to do that.

Opposition on the left and the right.

Quote:
I'm essentially libertarian, but not isolationist. I still stay it's the right action.

Let's hope we're not "burned by the fires we make"... again. Although some Libyans have welcomed the coalition, there will undoubtedly be others who oppose it passionately (especially those who have civilian relatives killed by coalition bombs), and any pent-up unresolved anger could surface years, or decades later, in ways that will not be very welcome. The same may happen as a result of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Middle easterners remember, unlike we westerners who universally suffer from fleeting attention spans.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #29 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Thank YOU! I have been looking for a way to post this ever since Segovius (almost inexplicably) started posting how we (the US, or another country) needed to jump in and help solve this for Libya. What it comes down to is another country invading your borders and basically performing acts of war inside your borders.

I think I said SOMEONE should intervene but NOT the US or UK.

The reason is a simple one: if you see thousands and more being slaughtered in Darfur say or Bosnia then there are two usual default positions:

1) Hawk: get in there all guns blazing woo-hoo.: result = general chaos

2) Object to intervention but come up with no other solution: result = nothing happens and people die.

My position is merely an attempt to try to square the circle - to stop people dying (the alleged reason for the interventions) without adopting position 1.

The problem is with the Governments both in the West and in the Arab world....you can't trust any of them.

It's like if the firemen or paramedics who come round to save your life or house are really casing the joint to see what they can rip-off.

But that doesn't mean I have to oppose the institution of paramedics - I think they need to be replaced with people with integrity.

Then people in situations like the Libyan people will have nothing to fear - now they have everything to fear - and if they get 'saved' by the West they will have infinitely more things to fear.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #30 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.

As the angry birds would say: oooohhh, weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

What does Cindy Sheehan think about all of this???

http://www.infowars.com/barack-a-luj...een-the-light/

Fellows

She is deluded. Also, the thing with sarcasm is that at some point, you have to let the reader in on it. Otherwise you sound..well....like her.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.

You are correct sir.He is a phony hiding behind his so called Black African ancestors.He is for large corporations and banks all the way.
post #33 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...#ixzz1HL2p0N9C

Yes, yes...Bush was unilateral, Obama is multilateral. Bush was a warmonger who bobmed people into the stone age, Obama oh-so-reluctantly bombed people into the stone age. He's so MEASURED! He's so CEREBRAL! He's a good MULTI-TASKER!

Of course, the facts don't support these notions. Bush had twice as many coalition partners in Iraq. He went to the UN too. He used military force in part because of the humanitarian situations in question. Folks like you just dismissed such statements as "lies" and "shifting justifications." Meanwhile, the only difference between the the Bush uses of force are the 1) Size and scope and 2) America didn't lead. That's the real difference. We let the Arab League, the U.N. and that beacon of moral certitude, France tellus what to do and how to do it.

Now don't get me wrong....I support working with the UN and the Arab league ( I tend to ignore France...is that even a country anymore?). But if we're asked for our help, we should respond with three points 1) If we get involved, we decide on how to conduct this operation and we lead it. 2) We want money. We're not spending a dime, mmmk Mr. Arab League? 3)We don't want to hear any crap about you criticizing us after we do get involved. Buh-bye.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Despite White House denials, they *sort of* let the cat out of the bag:

The White House strongly denied Tuesday that regime change is part of its mission in Libya, despite a statement earlier in the day that characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

><

At the same time, a strike on Gadhafi’s compound and statements from officials in other nations involved in the operation, have raised questions over the goals of the mission.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere in which Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.

This is why the mission needs to be better defined. If it's to remove Gadaffi, they should state that. If it's to stop him from bombing cities, state that.


Quote:
Damned right. Its gotta to be the biggest motivator to start, and maintain wars. Read General Smedley Butler's assessment "War is a Racket"... he nails it. As a Major General (and the US most highly decorated Marine), he is/was as qualified as anyone on the subject of war profiteering.

Somehow I think a book with the title "War is a Racket" might not present the most balanced view. I realize the military-industrial complex is a factor in a lot of things (notably our massive defense budget), but I think stating it is the REASON behind a particular military action is dubious at best. After all, one doesn't have to use the military to maintain a massive budget.

Quote:

Opposition on the left and the right.

Kucinich is a peacenik. You know it, I know it. He opposes nearly every military action, save the original Afghanistan vote. He's also wrong. As is the freshman member. Also, these two hardly constitute the opinion of the "Left" and "Right." As much as I think Obama is a horrid President (well on his way to being the worst ever), he has the authority. Nearly every President has used this authority. And by the way, there are many who believe the War Powers Resolution itself is Unconstitutional. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Pow...stitutionality

Quote:

Let's hope we're not "burned by the fires we make"... again. Although some Libyans have welcomed the coalition, there will undoubtedly be others who oppose it passionately (especially those who have civilian relatives killed by coalition bombs), and any pent-up unresolved anger could surface years, or decades later, in ways that will not be very welcome. The same may happen as a result of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Middle easterners remember, unlike we westerners who universally suffer from fleeting attention spans.

I think they might also remember us surrendering our respect around the world.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I think I said SOMEONE should intervene but NOT the US or UK.

The reason is a simple one: if you see thousands and more being slaughtered in Darfur say or Bosnia then there are two usual default positions:

1) Hawk: get in there all guns blazing woo-hoo.: result = general chaos

2) Object to intervention but come up with no other solution: result = nothing happens and people die.

My position is merely an attempt to try to square the circle - to stop people dying (the alleged reason for the interventions) without adopting position 1.

The problem is with the Governments both in the West and in the Arab world....you can't trust any of them.

It's like if the firemen or paramedics who come round to save your life or house are really casing the joint to see what they can rip-off.

But that doesn't mean I have to oppose the institution of paramedics - I think they need to be replaced with people with integrity.

Then people in situations like the Libyan people will have nothing to fear - now they have everything to fear - and if they get 'saved' by the West they will have infinitely more things to fear.

Ok, but you still ask for it both ways. You say the west needs to step in, but that if they step in that "they will have infinitely more things to fear."

So what you are asking for is apparently something that will not happen. An outside government stepping in without expecting something in return.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #36 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Ok, but you still ask for it both ways. You say the west needs to step in, but that if they step in that "they will have infinitely more things to fear."

So what you are asking for is apparently something that will not happen. An outside government stepping in without expecting something in return.

I guess so. But many people in many areas state what they think should happen when they know there is very little possibility.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #37 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I guess so. But many people in many areas state what they think should happen when they know there is very little possibility.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best in a situation. There is also nothing wrong with not knowing how to fix that situation and saying so. I just take issue with asking a group for help while at the same time lashing out at that group as being incapable of helping.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #38 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best in a situation. There is also nothing wrong with not knowing how to fix that situation and saying so. I just take issue with asking a group for help while at the same time lashing out at that group as being incapable of helping.

I don't want to labour the point but I did not do that.

I said SOME GROUP should help but not GROUP X

It's not Rocket Science.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #39 of 222
This mission is a hot potato. Obama is going to drop it but no one is going to catch it.

Plus he's an imperialist war monger in it for the OIL OIL OIL!
post #40 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider