PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Endgame in Libya?


Pages : [1] 2

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Holy shit.

Two of Qaddafi's sons reported to be captured, including Saif Al-Islam, the "rivers of blood" guy. Al Jazeera confirming.

Opposition is sweeping through Tripoli right now. Qaddafi seemingly cornered.

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/21/libya-syria-and-beyond-liveblog-endgame-in-tripoli.html

The above link is a running blog of progress by the opposition.

Here's Libya's state TV as of now:

http://www.enduringamerica.com/storage/libya%20tv.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1313960267948

Boom, folks. The Arab Spring seems to be on the verge of another victory.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Al Jazeera Arabic is reporting that Qaddafi's bodyguards have surrendered.
Go Chiefs.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:15 PM
1917 GMT: Alex Crawford of Sky News, with opposition fighters, says she is 10 kilometres from the centre of Tripoli: "Gaddafi forces put these huge boulders to block the road, it seems. We are driving right past them."

Crawford says, "There is no support for Colonel Qaddafim at least in the places we're driving through right now. No supporters."

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 04:15 PM
France actually didn't surrender this time?

Count Alex's Wins
08-21-2011, 04:17 PM
Now Al Qaeda takes over.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-21-2011, 04:23 PM
So how long until we hammer him with Kinetic Actions of Pure Love?

CoMoChief
08-21-2011, 04:29 PM
Now Al Qaeda takes over.

You mean, Al-CIAeda?

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:31 PM
Qaddafi spokesperson is calling for a ceasefire.

Love it.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 04:33 PM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome




Got it

KILLER_CLOWN
08-21-2011, 04:36 PM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome




Got it

Amazing isn't it? Most of the anti-war democrats now post to show how butch they are.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:40 PM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome

There's an airtight argument if there's ever been one.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 04:43 PM
There's an airtight argument if there's ever been one.

Observation =/= Argument


Go Chiefs

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:49 PM
Observation =/= Coherence

FYP

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:51 PM
2148 GMT: Qaddafi, on State TV, is calling for all cities and tribes to come to Tripoli in order to avoid becoming slaves.

Discuss Thrower
08-21-2011, 04:53 PM
Awesome, yet another country falls victim to Islamic extremist nutcases.

Tell me again how this is positive for USA, if not all of modern civilization?

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:54 PM
Awesome, yet another country falls victim to Islamic extremist nutcases.

Tell me again how this is positive for USA, if not all of modern civilization?

It doesn't need to be a positive for the USA. It needs to be a positive for the Libyan people.

Qaddafi is one of the most atrocious dictators on earth.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:56 PM
2151 GMT: Qaddafi is now claiming that "they" want to destroy Tripoli, and has asked for the Immams of the mosques to lead the people, with their weapons, against the opposition that is working for the imperialists.

The audio keeps cutting out.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 04:56 PM
FYP


:spock:


What exactly in that was incoherent again? Seemed pretty clear to everybody who is not you...

Chocolate Hog
08-21-2011, 04:57 PM
Libya becomes Somalia.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:58 PM
:spock:

What exactly in that was incoherent again? Seemed pretty clear to everybody who is not you...

What point, exactly, have you been attempting to make?

I'm going to give you a fair shot to explain yourself, lest there be any misunderstanding.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 04:59 PM
Libya becomes Somalia.

Meh. Libya's got some semblence of infrastructure and some AU support. Somalia's just been cast to the dogs.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:01 PM
Opposition's starting to take Tripoli, sports fans.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FWX1LicbfO0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 05:03 PM
What point, exactly, have you been attempting to make?

I'm going to give you a fair shot to explain yourself, lest there be any misunderstanding.


Sorry, I'm a shitty English to English translator


Maybe somebody else here can help

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:07 PM
Sorry, I'm a shitty English to English translator

Maybe somebody else here can help

That's about what I expected.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:07 PM
Qaddafi sounds desperate:

"Some armed gangs hiding in the streets, especially in Tajura...

"They have come, they have occupied Tripoli. How can you allow the colonialists to occupy Tripoli again, this is unacceptable!

"Get out of your homes, protect Tripoli now! This is a life or death matter!

"Tripoli has become like Baghdad, it is now being destroyed, it must end now, it must not happen, go out and fight them."

Easy 6
08-21-2011, 05:13 PM
The rebels have made a huge number of big gains in short order lately, the US must really be bringing the help.

Hopefully that results in a nominally more pro-west Libya, but i'm not holding my breath.

The enemy of my enemy.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:15 PM
2211 GMT: Sky News is reporting that there is now a major opposition convoy within 1 kilometer from Green Square.

This is the most significant news, in our opinion, that we have received tonight. Green Square is in the center of Tripoli, and if a major military convoy has arrived, then Tripoli really has been overrun by opposition fighters.

Brock
08-21-2011, 05:15 PM
The rebels have made a huge number of big gains in short order lately, the US must really be bringing the help.

Hopefully that results in a nominally more pro-west Libya, but i'm not holding my breath.

The enemy of my enemy.

No way. They'll be burning Obama in effigy next week.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:21 PM
2216 GMT: Two more very short audio message from Qaddafi. He is repeating himself now, calling on specific tribes to join him, and specific towns to send fighters to Tripoli. He is repeating that the Libyan people will be turned into slaves, and British imperialism will be renewed.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:23 PM
RT @Tripoli_Latest: Fughi compound surrounded in Ben ashour near Aldhul street, Fierce resistence from within #Tripoli #MermaidDawn

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:24 PM
2224 GMT: NATO has released a statement on the situation in Tripoli:

"The Qadhafi regime is clearly crumbling. The sooner Qadhafi realises that he cannot win the battle against his own people, the better -- so that the Libyan people can be spared further bloodshed and suffering.

The Libyan people have suffered tremendously under Qaddafi’s rule for over four decades. Now they have a chance for a new beginning. Now is the time for all threats against civilians to stop, as the United Nations Security Council demanded. Now is the time to create a new Libya – a state based on freedom, not fear; democracy, not dictatorship; the will of the many, not the whims of a few.

That transition must come peacefully. It must come now. And it must be led and defined by the Libyan people.

NATO is ready to work with the Libyan people and with the Transitional National Council, which holds a great responsibility. They must make sure that the transition is smooth and inclusive, that the country stays united, and that the future is founded on reconciliation and respect for human rights.

Qadhafi's remaining allies and forces also have a great responsibility. It is time to end their careers of violence. The world is watching them. This is their opportunity to side with the Libyan people and choose the right side of history.

We will continue to monitor military units and key facilities, as we have since March, and when we see any threatening moves towards the Libyan people, we will act in accordance with our UN mandate.

Our goal throughout this conflict has been to protect the people of Libya, and that is what we are doing.

Because the future of Libya belongs to the Libyan people. And it is for the international community to assist them, with the United Nations and the Contact Group playing a leading role. NATO wants the Libyan people to be able to decide their future in freedom and in peace. Today, they can start building that future."

Donger
08-21-2011, 05:27 PM
Qaddafi is one of the most atrocious dictators on earth.

So was Saddam, but that was under Bush.

Direckshun
08-21-2011, 05:29 PM
So was Saddam, but that was under Bush.

You lost me.

Am I advocating a full scale invasion of Libya to overthrow a dictator who is a menial threat to American lives?

Or am I supporting the Arab Spring with as little American involvement as possible?

Clear that up for me.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 05:30 PM
NO WAR FOR OIL


Hipocricy is a cruel mistress

RedNeckRaider
08-21-2011, 05:33 PM
So was Saddam, but that was under Bush.

Why make a fair comparison? I mean really did Bush win a Nobel peace prize huh...huh?

Donger
08-21-2011, 05:33 PM
You lost me.

Am I advocating a full scale invasion of Libya to overthrow a dictator who is a menial threat to American lives?

Or am I supporting the Arab Spring with as little American involvement as possible?

Clear that up for me.

You are supporting our assisting (with bullets, guns, and stuff) the overthrow of a dictator, because he's a bad one.

Would you have supported the introduction of our ground forces, if that had been required to overthrow Ghaddafi?

Donger
08-21-2011, 05:34 PM
NO WAR FOR OIL


Hipocricy is a cruel mistress

Direckshun only cares about the Libyan people. Stop it.

Chocolate Hog
08-21-2011, 05:37 PM
You lost me.

Am I advocating a full scale invasion of Libya to overthrow a dictator who is a menial threat to American lives?

Or am I supporting the Arab Spring with as little American involvement as possible?

Clear that up for me.

Right.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-21-2011, 05:41 PM
Turn Isreal loose and this shit would be over yesterday

RedNeckRaider
08-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Turn Isreal loose and this shit would be over yesterday

and Israel too!

Donger
08-21-2011, 05:45 PM
It doesn't need to be a positive for the USA. It needs to be a positive for the Libyan people.

And what is that positive for the Libyan people is a regime that is decidedly hostile to us?

HonestChieffan
08-21-2011, 07:15 PM
Awesome, yet another country falls victim to Islamic extremist nutcases.

Tell me again how this is positive for USA, if not all of modern civilization?


Was it ever supposed to be positive for the USA?....I cannot recall any benefit to the US ever being stated. If you are an islamist radical, its awesome however.

Dave Lane
08-21-2011, 10:20 PM
So was Saddam, but that was under Bush.

I'm sorry what time do we invade Libya? I want to set my DVR to record it.

Had the Iraqis risen up and overthrew Saddam on their own I would have been cheering.

Dave Lane
08-21-2011, 10:49 PM
And what is that positive for the Libyan people is a regime that is decidedly hostile to us?

They are hostile to us why? We just helped them get free of a dictator and a TERRORIST that killed American citizens. I'd think there should be a lot of goodwill from the Libyan people. How long that lasts depends on many things but I'd like to think they will want to work with us as opposed to working against us.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-21-2011, 10:52 PM
They haven't secured anything they're just shooting - Mahdi Nazemroaya

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IaPdYXDJ9lI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obamaqaddafi.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
08-21-2011, 11:08 PM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MezHfCxyEzs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MezHfCxyEzs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Frankie
08-21-2011, 11:22 PM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome




Got it

:facepalm:

orange
08-22-2011, 12:11 AM
RT TV spew direct from Putin

Amusing. You doubt everything our government says or does, but you take the ****ing KGB at their word? LMAO

RT : Proud To Be Different
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1024336,00.jpg

Make that Romantic Poetry direct from Putin

alnorth
08-22-2011, 12:58 AM
I'm fairly happy about this situation.

I know that the standard Ron Paul dogma mandates that I should be annoyed, but I am not.

If: 1) a foreign government side of a problem has any strategic economic importance to us (so if its a country no one cares about, we may fail at this point since it may be some irrelevant some south American country) and if 2) it takes very little effort, very little money, very few or no lives on our part to help, and if 3) stability leads to a very solid economic benefit to us, then I'm OK with intervention,. for our own selfish benefit.

Taco John
08-22-2011, 01:05 AM
The fighting has subsided. Now the real slaughter begins. The tribal wars that breaks out is going to make this recent struggle look like the previews before the latest SAW movie.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 01:31 AM
Amusing. You doubt everything our government says or does, but you take the ****ing KGB at their word? LMAO

RT : Proud To Be Different
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1024336,00.jpg

You haven't a clue, I posted this because you won't see this coverage from CNN and I know the Obama administration does anything but tell the truth. You're stuck in derpland my boy.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 01:46 AM
You are supporting our assisting (with bullets, guns, and stuff) the overthrow of a dictator, because he's a bad one.

Would you have supported the introduction of our ground forces, if that had been required to overthrow Ghaddafi?

False equivocation.

I would not have supported intervention if it had required a full scale invasion, or unilateralism.

I don't actually support American involvement here at all -- I feel that the American involvement has been disproportionate to the rest of NATO, and that our involvement is primarily over oil.

But if a brutal, terrorist dictator is about to get overthrown, I'm not going to pretend I'm unhappy.

Ugly Duck
08-22-2011, 01:47 AM
Am I advocating a full scale invasion of Libya to overthrow a dictator who is a menial threat to American lives?

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction & the US was under threat of attack from Iraq. Thats why we had to invade & occupy & lose thousands of American lives & spend trillions that went onto the national debt that our children will pay for. Oh wait... the Bush admin changed the reason to Saddam was a dictator that kills his own people. That reason then became reason enough & is almost uniformly defended by righties.

Or am I supporting the Arab Spring with as little American involvement as possible?



Like Saddam was, Khadadfy is also a dictator that kills his own people. But because Obama is in charge now, righties now reject the very excuse they use for Iraq & decry the US lending some air support to Libyans overthrowing their own dictator. No Americans killed. No trillions spent. No future bankruptcy to our children. But overthrowing the murderous dictator of Libya with little cost is suddenly bad now cuz a Dem is Commander in Chief. Overthrowing the murderous dictator of Iraq at enormous cost in lives & national debt is the much preferred way to go cuz a Republi was in charge. Thats "principle" for you....

orange
08-22-2011, 01:47 AM
I posted this because you won't see this coverage from CNN

If they were around then, you wouldn't have gotten Tokyo Rose from CNN, either.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 01:52 AM
And what is that positive for the Libyan people is a regime that is decidedly hostile to us?

The Libyan government's oil contracts and involvement in the UN aside, they've been hostile to us for quite some time.

The positive in this is moving on from Qaddafi, plain and simple.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 01:54 AM
The fighting has subsided. Now the real slaughter begins. The tribal wars that breaks out is going to make this recent struggle look like the previews before the latest SAW movie.

That is, I think, everyone's fear.

The good news is that the opposition does have an infrastructure they can maintain.

Ugly Duck
08-22-2011, 02:07 AM
Remember when Republis were castigating Obama for being "too late & too weak" in his Libya response? A strong leader would have gone in sooner with decisive force. Now they've done a complete about-face on their original criticism. Once we provided effective air cover for the Libyan people, they changed their criticism 180 degrees & now say Obama has overreached in our military involvement. Strategy? Just take the opposite position of whatever Obama does - even if you have to contradict directly what your previous position was. Thats the Republi version of "change you can count on."

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:24 AM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_UyQM-7RX6I?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_UyQM-7RX6I?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:27 AM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HUTYL8HfCGo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HUTYL8HfCGo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:30 AM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UErR7i2onW0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UErR7i2onW0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:16 AM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome




Got it

:clap:

Yeah, and the opposition get to be called rebels instead of "insurgents."

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 03:45 AM
Yeah, and the opposition get to be called rebels instead of "insurgents."

0830 GMT: The BBC's Jon Williams sends this message, "Significant that NTC [insurgent] forces not moving from Zlitan --- roadblock stopping move into Tripoli from east. Not confident what lies beyond."

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 04:48 AM
0830 GMT: The BBC's Jon Williams sends this message, "Significant that NTC [insurgent] forces not moving from Zlitan --- roadblock stopping move into Tripoli from east. Not confident what lies beyond."

I don't watch the BBC. I was referring to American news media. I've seen CNN and Fox to date and the word I've seen is "rebels."

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 04:59 AM
I don't watch the BBC. I was referring to American news media. I've seen CNN and Fox to date and the word I've seen is "rebels."

Goalposts. You moved them.

Donger
08-22-2011, 07:52 AM
I'm sorry what time do we invade Libya? I want to set my DVR to record it.

Had the Iraqis risen up and overthrew Saddam on their own I would have been cheering.

We've been invading them from the air (and we almost certainly have boots on ground, too) since, what, March?

The Iraqis/Kurds DID rise up and tried to overthrow Saddam in 1991. We didn't help them.

Donger
08-22-2011, 07:55 AM
They are hostile to us why? We just helped them get free of a dictator and a TERRORIST that killed American citizens. I'd think there should be a lot of goodwill from the Libyan people. How long that lasts depends on many things but I'd like to think they will want to work with us as opposed to working against us.

Direckshun seems more concerned/happy about this being a positive for the Libyans, compared to how it might turn out for us. I'm pointing out that we don't know either at this point.

Donger
08-22-2011, 07:56 AM
False equivocation.

I would not have supported intervention if it had required a full scale invasion, or unilateralism.

I don't actually support American involvement here at all -- I feel that the American involvement has been disproportionate to the rest of NATO, and that our involvement is primarily over oil.

But if a brutal, terrorist dictator is about to get overthrown, I'm not going to pretend I'm unhappy.

Cool. So, you were happy when Saddam was overthrown, right?

Donger
08-22-2011, 07:59 AM
The positive in this is moving on from Qaddafi, plain and simple.

Sorry, but you don't know that. Not unless you can see the future. This may well end up being a positive for the Libyans, us and the rest of the world. but I wouldn't be so quick to make such a declaration.

mlyonsd
08-22-2011, 08:01 AM
Warmongering under Bush = Bad

Warmongering under Obama = Awesome




Got it

Pretty much the best post of the thread. 2011 will be known as the year nation building became cool.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:14 AM
So was Saddam, but that was under Bush.


How many American boots are on the ground in Libya making this happen? How many years and dollars will we spend rebuilding Libya?

Donger
08-22-2011, 08:16 AM
How many American boots are on the ground in Libya making this happen? How many years and dollars will we spend rebuilding Libya?

"It doesn't need to be a positive for the USA."

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 08:17 AM
We've been invading them from the air (and we almost certainly have boots on ground, too) since, what, March?

The Iraqis/Kurds DID rise up and tried to overthrow Saddam in 1991. We didn't help them.


Not even close to the same thing. I know you are smarter than that. If we had landed 200,000 men in Libya I'd have been against it as I was Iraq. As it stands, this is 90% libyans 8% French, 1% US and Im good with that.

And we did supply a no fly zone for the Kurds as well long before we invaded.

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 08:19 AM
Pretty much the best post of the thread. 2011 will be known as the year nation building became cool.

Actually I think I'd nominate it for most shortsighted post of 2011

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:20 AM
The Libyan government's oil contracts and involvement in the UN aside, they've been hostile to us for quite some time.

The positive in this is moving on from Qaddafi, plain and simple.


In his defense (hard to believe I'm doing that), Khadafy (however you want to spell it) has been more moderate over the last, whatever, 5 or 10 years. Of course, he had nowhere to go but more moderate, since he was alot more like Iran in terms of being extremely hostile to the West for a very long time.

As others here have said, however, I'll shed no tears over his overthrow. The concern, of course, is that Libya falls prey to years of infighting by the tribal factions, etc., all of which could dramatically affect the oil production which will factor into the world economy in a significant way.

Somalia fell apart and has been allowed to languish for 20 or so years because it had nothing anybody wanted, and the local warlords made it too hard to help them. Libya definitely does have something the rest of the world wants, and I have no doubt the entire world will be watching, and intervening if necessary, to get what it wants.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:21 AM
:clap:

Yeah, and the opposition get to be called rebels instead of "insurgents."

What war(s) has Obama started?

mlyonsd
08-22-2011, 08:23 AM
Actually I think I'd nominate it for most shortsighted post of 2011Yes I'm sure you would.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:24 AM
Cool. So, you were happy when Saddam was overthrown, right?


I was happy when he was overthrown, happy when he was caught, and happier still when he was hanged by the neck until dead.

I would be equally happy if you replaced Saddam with the ruling family of North Korea and the theocratic leaders of Iran and Aha-can'tspellhisname.

Doesn't mean we should commit a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of troops to doing it though.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:27 AM
"It doesn't need to be a positive for the USA."


We should work to ensure that it will be a positive for the USA. The fear is that the country falls into pieces as a result of factionalism/tribal wars.

Americans can little understand or relate to the simple fact that huge parts of the world have never known democracy and that the transition to a peaceful and stable democracy may be impossible.

I hope it goes smoothly, but I doubt it will.

Donger
08-22-2011, 08:29 AM
Not even close to the same thing. I know you are smarter than that. If we had landed 200,000 men in Libya I'd have been against it as I was Iraq. As it stands, this is 90% libyans 8% French, 1% US and Im good with that.

And we did supply a no fly zone for the Kurds as well long before we invaded.

I'm talking about 1991. Bush called for the Iraqis/Kurds to rise up after we kicked him out of Kuwait. They did and we didn't support them. The no-fly zones were created AFTER that.

And, yes, obviously the scale of our involvement is much less in Libya. But that doesn't change the overall concept: going in to get a brutal dictator = good.

As long as Obama is doing it.

However, in deference to Direckshum, she doesn't support our involvement in Libya either. But she's doing a darn good job of cheerleading it.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:35 AM
And, yes, obviously the scale of our involvement is much less in Libya. But that doesn't change the overall concept: going in to get a brutal dictator = good.

As long as Obama is doing it.



Que?

If you're suggesting that the "left" (however you want to describe it) is hypocritical in supporting overthrowing dictators when Obama does it but not when Bush does it, I think you're being fairly ridiculous.

The questions -- in ANY policy decision -- are the costs in treasure and blood to achieve a perceived benefit. Risk/benefit analysis.

The left struggled with the risk/benefit analysis in Iraq, especially after no WMDs were found and it was believed by many (wrongly in my opinion) that the Bush Administration purposely lied to the American people regarding WMDs in order to generate support for the invasion and overthrow of Saddam's brutal regime.

The expenditure of blood and treasure in Libya has been exceedingly small by comparison, with fairly minimal risks. The potential benefits are also somewhat smaller since, presumably, we will have less control over whatever new regime will be formed there. But in supporting the rebels we will, hopefully, make them somewhat more friendly to the West.

To suggest that Iraq and Libya are similar is pretty silly.

Donger
08-22-2011, 08:38 AM
Americans can little understand or relate to the simple fact that huge parts of the world have never known democracy and that the transition to a peaceful and stable democracy may be impossible.

That's the key point. It was the key point in Iraq. It is the key point in Egypt. And it will be in Libya.

But why let historical facts get in the way of a nice world/group hug while putting metaphorical flowers in the barrels?

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Probably short sighted on bush's front to not at least assist. Gadoofy has been a major pain in the ass in years past, a terrorist that killed Americans, directly supported terror against American interests and has destabilized Libya for years by playing tribes against tribes within Libya for his own benefit.

When Reagan directly attacked him and his line of death I failed to hear the condemnation from the right for his actions. I have as much problem with this as getting strongmen out of Serbia. If we can drop a couple bombs to help Iran overthrow the mullahs and NK lose it's dear leader, I'm in.

To me this IS protecting and advancing American interests.

Donger
08-22-2011, 08:42 AM
Que?

If you're suggesting that the "left" (however you want to describe it) is hypocritical in supporting overthrowing dictators when Obama does it but not when Bush does it, I think you're being fairly ridiculous.

The questions -- in ANY policy decision -- are the costs in treasure and blood to achieve a perceived benefit. Risk/benefit analysis.

The left struggled with the risk/benefit analysis in Iraq, especially after no WMDs were found and it was believed by many (wrongly in my opinion) that the Bush Administration purposely lied to the American people regarding WMDs in order to generate support for the invasion and overthrow of Saddam's brutal regime.

The expenditure of blood and treasure in Libya has been exceedingly small by comparison, with fairly minimal risks. The potential benefits are also somewhat smaller since, presumably, we will have less control over whatever new regime will be formed there. But in supporting the rebels we will, hopefully, make them somewhat more friendly to the West.

To suggest that Iraq and Libya are similar is pretty silly.

It should be noted that I didn't agree with the decision to go after Hussein the second time, just for the record.

The only comparison that I'm making between Libya and Iraq is that the goal was to remove the dictators. I think we all agree that that was the goal each time. Both involved armed conflict. The difference is the scale of that conflict and our involvement in it.

As long as folks like Direckshun were just as happy with Saddam being kicked out as they will be when Ghaddafi is, I'm good.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:43 AM
That's the key point. It was the key point in Iraq. It is the key point in Egypt. And it will be in Libya.

But why let historical facts get in the way of a nice world/group hug while putting metaphorical flowers in the barrels?


Being happy that Khadafy was/is/will-soon-be overthrown doesn't mean that one is blind to the possible problems that may arise as a result.

It was, in my opinion, the single worst failing of BushCo's decision to invade Iraq. It seemingly had no idea that Iraq had absolutely NOTHING holding it together as a country except of Saddam's iron will and iron fist. Not race, not tribe, not religion, nothing. It was, simply, an area drawn on a map by England a little under a hundred years ago and declared to be a separate country.

For BushCo to have failed to realized the problems that would arise from overthrowing Saddam and to have plans in place for handling the transition was absolutely unforgiveable. Ignorant, stupid, mediocre, moronic, the adjectives I could use are endless. Any fool with any understanding of the country at all could have predicted the problems, and yet BushCo acted like it would be an easy transition. Any idiot with a map of the world could figure that Iran, right next door, might get involved in the post-war transition process, but they were seemingly surprised.

Just a stunningly amateur display.

Donger
08-22-2011, 08:46 AM
Being happy that Khadafy was/is/will-soon-be overthrown doesn't mean that one is blind to the possible problems that may arise as a result.

"The positive in this is moving on from Qaddafi, plain and simple."

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 08:50 AM
It should be noted that I didn't agree with the decision to go after Hussein the second time, just for the record.

I realize you're not Patteeu, who thinks everything BushCo ever did was perfect in every aspect.

I didn't know you opposed the decision to go after Hussein the second time, however. Thanks for the clarification.

The only comparison that I'm making between Libya and Iraq is that the goal was to remove the dictators. I think we all agree that that was the goal each time. Both involved armed conflict. The difference is the scale of that conflict and our involvement in it.

As long as folks like Direckshun were just as happy with Saddam being kicked out as they will be when Ghaddafi is, I'm good.


I can't speak for others. For myself, I had mixed feelings about, for example, the removal of Mumbarak in Egypt. While I realize that he was at least a somewhat brutal dictator (not on par with Saddam, but not a nice guy), I tend to be very realpolitick in my thinking. If Mumbarak's regime is replaced with a stable one that is nice to its people but hostile to the West, funds Al Quada and threatens the Suez Canal, then I won't be happy that he was removed, no matter how nice it is to its citizens.

I suppose that makes me a bad liberal, but then, I'm becoming less liberal as I get older.

Chiefshrink
08-22-2011, 09:30 AM
Have we ever got an answer from the WH as to why our troops are in Libya?

Is it to help the "terrorist rebels" and to help "O" have another political "osama moment" that DIDN"T WORK???

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 09:32 AM
I may be a bad liberal too then. My hope is that when we support freedom and democracy for the middle east that it buys us some cache with the people of the region. They see we want to support freedom and democratic rule and enabling the people of these countries. Its going to be hard for the hardliners / militants to get the population enraged with us when we didn't do the heavy lifting they did.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 09:34 AM
I may be a bad liberal too then. My hope is that when we support freedom and democracy for the middle east that it buys us some cache with the people of the region and they see we want to support freedom and democratic rule and enabling the people of these countries. Its going to be hard for the hardliners / militants to get the population enraged with us when we didn't do the heavy lifting they did.


Agreed all around.

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 09:35 AM
Have we ever got an answer from the WH as to why our troops are in Libya?

Is it to help the "terrorist rebels" and to help "O" have another political "osama moment" that DIDN"T WORK???

"All real Americans love the sting of battle and may God have mercy on my enemies because I wont".

Its like a black fly in your chardonnay...

Saul Good
08-22-2011, 09:52 AM
I may be a bad liberal too then. My hope is that when we support freedom and democracy for the middle east that it buys us some cache with the people of the region. They see we want to support freedom and democratic rule and enabling the people of these countries. Its going to be hard for the hardliners / militants to get the population enraged with us when we didn't do the heavy lifting they did.

It will never be hard to get anyone in that part of the world enraged against the US.

Donger
08-22-2011, 09:56 AM
I realize you're not Patteeu, who thinks everything BushCo ever did was perfect in every aspect.

I didn't know you opposed the decision to go after Hussein the second time, however. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

I can't speak for others. For myself, I had mixed feelings about, for example, the removal of Mumbarak in Egypt. While I realize that he was at least a somewhat brutal dictator (not on par with Saddam, but not a nice guy), I tend to be very realpolitick in my thinking. If Mumbarak's regime is replaced with a stable one that is nice to its people but hostile to the West, funds Al Quada and threatens the Suez Canal, then I won't be happy that he was removed, no matter how nice it is to its citizens.

I suppose that makes me a bad liberal, but then, I'm becoming less liberal as I get older.

I don't disagree with this at all. I just find the wishful thinking and "I don't care how it is for us" to be dangerous.

Brock
08-22-2011, 09:58 AM
It will never be hard to get anyone in that part of the world enraged against the US.

Nope. Burning US flags is like a reflex action with these people.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 10:52 AM
"A Lesson That May Not Be Lost on Others
by Lew Rockwell on August 22, 2011

1) Gaddafi, at the behest of the US, gives up his WMD.

2) The US overthrows him."

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 10:53 AM
We attack countries that can't defend themselves or who are no match for us.
Now it's NATO an organization formed to keep Russians out.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 11:21 AM
"A Lesson That May Not Be Lost on Others
by Lew Rockwell on August 22, 2011

1) Gaddafi, at the behest of the US, gives up his WMD.

2) The US overthrows him."


The US didn't overthrow him. His own people did, with some assistance from NATO, which includes the US. It's not exactly splitting hairs since if his own people hadn't risen up against him, he'd still be in power today (compare to, for example, Saddam Hussein).

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 11:22 AM
We attack countries that can't defend themselves or who are no match for us.


Welcome to human history 101. Usually you don't attack stronger countries unless you want your butt kicked.


Now it's NATO an organization formed to keep Russians out.


NATO has morphed into something else. You may have missed it, but the whole Communist threat thing kind of went the way of the dodo.

Fat Elvis
08-22-2011, 12:01 PM
"A Lesson That May Not Be Lost on Others
by Lew Rockwell on August 22, 2011

1) Gaddafi, at the behest of the US, gives up his WMD.

2) The US overthrows him."

...or....

1) Libya blows up Pan Am Flight 103; bomber gets put in jail; bomber gets out of jail because of imminent death due to "cancer" and goes back to Libya; Gaddafi says, "Just kidding on the whole imminent death and humanitarian release thing."

2) US overthrows him.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 12:06 PM
So much revisionist history, so little truth. Hopefully one of these days, we can make the world safe for compound interest.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Direckshun seems more concerned/happy about this being a positive for the Libyans, compared to how it might turn out for us. I'm pointing out that we don't know either at this point.

I don't think this really has that much of an impact on us, actually.

Libya is a menial threat to us at best whether they have Qaddafi (sp?) or an Islamic republic that's run by fundamentalists.

Both setups would probably still do business with us, and neither is that great of a threat.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Cool. So, you were happy when Saddam was overthrown, right?

Who wasn't?

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:30 PM
Sorry, but you don't know that. Not unless you can see the future. This may well end up being a positive for the Libyans, us and the rest of the world. but I wouldn't be so quick to make such a declaration.

Right, I guess I mean "in my opinion."

Under almost no realm of possibility will I ever weigh a dictatorship as being beneficial to a democracy.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:32 PM
However, in deference to Direckshum, she doesn't support our involvement in Libya either. But she's doing a darn good job of cheerleading it.

Swing and a miss.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 12:33 PM
Message from Liberals to New conservatives, we're all neocons now!

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:34 PM
...or....

1) Libya blows up Pan Am Flight 103; bomber gets put in jail; bomber gets out of jail because of imminent death due to "cancer" and goes back to Libya; Gaddafi says, "Just kidding on the whole imminent death and humanitarian release thing."

2) US overthrows him.

That has nothing to do with my post and omits time frames in order to reframe my point. It's a strawman argument to an older issue that was resolved. What is it with strawmen and you lefties? Why is NATO now policing other countries?

FACT: Bush restored diplomatic relations when Gaddafi completed the payout of up to US$2.7 billion to the victims' families by 2003 as well as for other acts of terror.

FACT: "In exchange, President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terrorism-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the United States." - wikipedia

"In 2004, the Libyan Prime Minister, openly told a Western reporter that Gaddafi was "paying for peace" with the West, and that there was never any evidence or guilt for the Lockerbie bombing."- wikipedia Other groups took credit for the act too.


Gaddafi basically made peace with us. Got rid of his WMD. We with our allies, bomb him anyway. It has everything to do with the dollar which he was ditching and which is his right.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:35 PM
Message from Liberals to New conservatives, we're all neocons now!


Bill Kristol calls Obama a Born Again NeoCon: LMAO
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Gu1olAaM4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jaric
08-22-2011, 12:36 PM
Perhaps we should wait until we see what happens with him gone before we declare this a victory for the Libyan people.

vailpass
08-22-2011, 12:41 PM
Savages overthrowing savages so a new savage government can be installed. Hooray.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 12:41 PM
Gaddafi basically made peace with us. Got rid of his WMD. We with our allies, bomb him anyway. It has everything to do with the dollar which he was ditching and which is his right.



:rolleyes:


So his people rose up against him because he was ditching the dollar? Our NATO allies BEGGED us to help them out because he was ditching the dollar?

Do you even think about what you're typing, because it makes no sense whatsoever a frightening percentage of the time.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:44 PM
Who wasn't?

Just checking.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:45 PM
Swing and a miss.

Oh, I guess I completely misread you. You seem to be quite pleased with the results so far.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:45 PM
Savages overthrowing savages so a new savage government can be installed. Hooray.

This is true. Most revolutions, especially in these Third World countries, wind up with new govts no better or worse than the previous govt. We were lucky with ours, although these days I am not so sure of anymore. France wasn't so lucky when they got the Jacobins, nor was the Russia in 1917, Iran, Iraq etc. etc. I'd rather deal with something known than an unknown in some cases. At least Gaddafi paid for some peace with the West.

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:45 PM
Just checking.

If I'm overzealous with nothing else, it's when people/dictators/regimes resist democracy.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:46 PM
Gaddafi basically made peace with us. Got rid of his WMD. We with our allies, bomb him anyway. It has everything to do with the dollar which he was ditching and which is his right.

You left out the "and he's killing his own people who are trying to depose him" part.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:47 PM
:rolleyes:


So his people rose up against him because he was ditching the dollar? Our NATO allies BEGGED us to help them out because he was ditching the dollar?

Do you even think about what you're typing, because it makes no sense whatsoever a frightening percentage of the time.

LMAO

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 12:47 PM
Oh, I guess I completely misread you. You seem to be quite pleased with the results so far.

Of overthrowing Qaddafi, quite.

That doesn't mean I unequivicably support American involvement or all means necessary to get there.

I've started similar threads on Iran, Egypt, Yemen (I'm pretty sure...), Bahrain (I think), and Syria.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:47 PM
You left out the "and he's killing his own people who are trying to depose him" part.

That's just BS propaganda. It has to do with the dollar which he was going to ditch. This is a war for the Big Banksters—the ones we taxpayers bailed out.
Nothing more than two evil groups fighting one another which may be replaced with another evil group.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:49 PM
Of overthrowing Qaddafi, quite.

That doesn't mean I unequivicably support American involvement or all means necessary to get there.

I've started similar threads on Iran, Egypt, Yemen (I'm pretty sure...), Bahrain (I think), and Syria.

Overthrowing Gaddafi is just one event. If another dictator takes his place, I fail to see what there is to celebrate.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:49 PM
That's just BS propaganda. It has to do with the dollar which he was going to ditch. This is a war for the Big Banksters葉he ones we taxpayers bailed out.
Nothing more than two evil groups fighting one another which may be replaced with another evil group.

Holy shit. Even the shit-house rats are looking at you sideways, honey.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 12:50 PM
That's just BS propaganda. It has to do with the dollar which he was going to ditch. This is a war for the Big Banksters葉he ones we taxpayers bailed out.
Nothing more than two evil groups fighting one another which may be replaced with another evil group.


Big Banksters made the population of Libya rise up in revolt against Khadafy's regime.....because he was going to ditch the dollar.

That's what you're saying? That's your argument?

Newsflash -- it's absurd rubbish.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 01:00 PM
Holy shit. Even the shit-house rats are looking at you sideways, honey.

I had always figured you for a brit. :hmmm:

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 01:01 PM
Actually, BEP, you should know that there is another power at work here behind the overthrow of Khadafy's regime -- cheese conglomerates. It's true, Big Cheese has spread its evil yellow tentacles into every facet of the international food supply chain and as you problably know Libya imports 75% of its food supply. Rumors of reductions in cheese imports by Khadafy, especially of grated cheese in those handy portable resealable pouches -- a serious threat to both the CheeseGraters and ResealablePlasticPouch conglomerates -- has led to his overthrow.

Keep your eye on Big Cheese. They're everywhere you don't suspect.

Donger
08-22-2011, 01:02 PM
I had always figured you for a brit. :hmmm:

Ex/recovering-Brit, yes.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 01:07 PM
Actually, BEP, you should know that there is another power at work here behind the overthrow of Khadafy's regime -- cheese conglomerates. It's true, Big Cheese has spread its evil yellow tentacles into every facet of the international food supply chain and as you problably know Libya imports 75% of its food supply. Rumors of reductions in cheese imports by Khadafy, especially of grated cheese in those handy portable resealable pouches -- a serious threat to both the CheeseGraters and ResealablePlasticPouch conglomerates -- has led to his overthrow.

Keep your eye on Big Cheese. They're everywhere you don't suspect.

It's about as plausible as Hopebama's foreign policy, I was wondering where all the liberals were hooking their wagons.

Radar Chief
08-22-2011, 01:15 PM
...or....

1) Libya blows up Pan Am Flight 103; bomber gets put in jail; bomber gets out of jail because of imminent death due to "cancer" and goes back to Libya; Gaddafi says, "Just kidding on the whole imminent death and humanitarian release thing."
2) US overthrows him.

He was released from prison by the British.
See what getting out of that British socialist health care will do for you?

Fat Elvis
08-22-2011, 01:30 PM
He was released from prison by the British.
See what getting out of that British socialist health care will do for you?

It's all BP....

go bowe
08-22-2011, 01:31 PM
He was released from prison by the British.
See what getting out of that British socialist health care will do for you?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

too right, too right...

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:43 PM
Ex/recovering-Brit, yes.

You can take the man out of the British Empire but you can't take the British Empire out of the man. You need a little more work 'til we make you into an American Patriot a la Founding Father's style. ;) Continue being a nut.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:45 PM
Holy shit. Even the shit-house rats are looking at you sideways, honey.

Just because you don't read the analysis I read doesn't make it out of line. Most wars are based on lies. The rebels were set up with their own bank and control of the oil. That's all one needs to know. But by all means continue to believe the handmaidens of the state葉he mainstream media.

Donger
08-22-2011, 01:47 PM
Just because you don't read the analysis I read doesn't make it out of line. Most wars are based on lies. The rebels were set up with their own bank and control of the oil. That's all one needs to know. But by all means continue to believe the handmaidens of the state葉he mainstream media.

I'd be happy to read the analysis. Please present it.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Just because you don't read the analysis I read doesn't make it out of line. Most wars are based on lies. The rebels were set up with their own bank and control of the oil. That's all one needs to know. But by all means continue to believe the handmaidens of the state葉he mainstream media.


Do you have any support for this, other than someone raving at LewNutCake.com?

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 01:48 PM
I'd be happy to read the analysis. Please present it.


Gotta be somewhere on Lew Rockwell right? I mean, everything she says on here is a repost of something on there. Talk about following your talking points...

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:49 PM
I'd be happy to read the analysis. Please present it.

I did earlier in other threads and a bit here. You always make me repeat myself.

Donger
08-22-2011, 01:49 PM
I did earlier in other threads and a bit here. You always make me repeat myself.

And there it is.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:52 PM
And there it is.

No it's not there. But it is here on this board—even in this thread. You missed it apparently even though it was said simple and direct. I am doing quick posts today as I am on my way to Tallahassee to take the kid to school and am packing. I have no interest in wasting my time with one of your dragged out debates with a million questions, when I said what I think the real reason is for this intervention already right in this thread. Feel free to disagree because frankly I don't care what you think about it.

Donger
08-22-2011, 01:55 PM
No it's not there. But it is here on this board容ven in this thread. I am doing quick posts today as I am on my way to Tallahassee to take the kid to school and am packing. I have no interest in wasting my time with one of your dragged out debates with a million questions, when I said what I think the real reason is for this intervention already right in this thread. Feel free to disagree because frankly I don't care what you think about it.

Yes, you've told us what you think the real reason is AND mentioned an analysis. Yet, rather than a simple cut and paste of the URL of the analysis, you take the time to write the above. Odd.

Anyway, here's a fun link:

http://www.libertariantoday.com/2011/04/invasion-of-bankster-parasites-obamas.html

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:57 PM
Did you say something?

Direckshun
08-22-2011, 02:00 PM
Overthrowing Gaddafi is just one event. If another dictator takes his place, I fail to see what there is to celebrate.

That's fair.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:02 PM
Yes, you've told us what you think the real reason is AND mentioned an analysis. Yet, rather than a simple cut and paste of the URL of the analysis, you take the time to write the above. Odd.

Anyway, here's a fun link:

http://www.libertariantoday.com/2011/04/invasion-of-bankster-parasites-obamas.html

LMAO

No not the exact same case I was making. Just some similarities. You forgot to mention his creating his own currency.
Oh and I didn't get it there. May I ask what is wrong with using what I consider a reliable source just as you consider the sources that lied to us about Iraq reliable? My sources have been much more accurate with their predictions than the mainstream from Iraq, to the financial crisis. I'll stick with those getting results such as former CIA etc. Go a few years back here on this board where I say we will attack Africa and Syria too. Psst! It's happening. Sources have to do with trust. Sorry— just a FACT.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:03 PM
Did you say something?



Yes. Big Cheese.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:09 PM
Lemmingly, some roll along

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:15 PM
April 2011

Wow! That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established a New Central Bank of Libya and formed a form a new national oil company while waging a war. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/libya-rebels-central-bank.html)

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :hmmm:

Over the past couple of years, Moammar Gadhafi had threatened to nationalize the oil industry in Libya and kick western oil companies out of the country, but now that Libya will be "free" the people of Libya will be able to work hand in hand with "big oil" and this will create a better Libya for everyone....

When Barack Obama looked straight into the camera and told the American people that the war in Libya is in the "strategic interest" of the United States, surely he was not referring to oil.

After all, war for oil was a "Bush thing", right? The Democrats voted for Obama to end wars like this, right? Surely no prominent Democrats will publicly support this war in Libya, right?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:24 PM
The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scott-pd10.1.html)

Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for dollars just before being attacked.

It is also a matter of public record that the UN no-fly resolution 1973 of March 17 followed shortly on Gaddafi’s public threat of March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.15 Significantly China, Russia, and India (joined by their BRICS ally Brazil), all abstained on UN Resolution 1973.

The issue of oil is closely intertwined with that of the dollar, because the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency depends largely on OPEC’s decision to denominate the dollar as the currency for OPEC oil purchases. Today’s petrodollar economy dates back to two secret agreements with the Saudisin the 1970s for the recycling of petrodollars back into the US economy. The first of these deals assured a special and on-going Saudi stake in the health of the US dollar; the second secured continuing Saudi support for the pricing of all OPEC oil in dollars. These two deals assured that the US economy would not be impoverished by OPEC oil price hikes. Since then the heaviest burden has been borne instead by the economies of less developed countries, who need to purchase dollars for their oil supplies.16

Barack Obama is a LIAR.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:25 PM
April 2011

Wow! That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established a New Central Bank of Libya and formed a form a new national oil company. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/libya-rebels-central-bank.html)

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :hmmm:



The article is dated April 1, 2011. How appropriate.


But in all seriousness, if the rebels don't move quickly to control the oil supplies, then they're pretty damn stupid.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:27 PM
The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scott-pd10.1.html)

Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for dollars just before being attacked.



Barack Obama is a LIAR.



If Lewrockwell.com says it, it must be true.


But behind it all is Big Cheese. Mark my words. Wake up and smell the limburger.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:30 PM
If Lewrockwell.com says it, it must be true.


But behind it all is Big Cheese. Mark my words. Wake up and smell the limburger.

Quite frankly it smells more rotten than the usual limburger.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:37 PM
Quite frankly it smells more rotten than the usual limburger.

Imagine that. You can say our own War for Independence was rooted in economics against mercantilist England and that's okay. Or even India which also had an economic angle....it was just handled peacefully by a smart man named Ghandi. Just don't say the Southern War for Independence, or Iraq, Iran and Libya have anything to do with economics. Lolz!

Not only that but Lew Rockwell didn't write those. His crew put it up on his site. Facts are facts otherwise and those things have happened. But we're supposed to believe that since Barack Obama says it's true it must be. Just applying the same logic....when it's really who's side is getting gored.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:41 PM
Imagine that. You can say our own War for Independence was rooted in economics against mercantilist England and that's okay. Or even India which also had an economic angle....it was just handled peacefully by a smart man named Ghandi. Just don't say the Southern War for Independence, or Iraq, Iran and Libya have anything to do with economics. Lolz!


Slavery was largely about economics, there's no doubt of that. And economics are often a prime cause for wars, etc.

And I have no doubt that many Libyans hope to better their economic situation out from under Khadafy's thumb, given that he allocated oil profits as he wished and wealth distribution was absurdly unfair.

But none of that translates into this being a war caused by ExxonMobil or Goldman Sachs.

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:54 PM
April 2011

Wow! That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established a New Central Bank of Libya and formed a form a new national oil company while waging a war. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/libya-rebels-central-bank.html)

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :hmmm:

You are so easy.

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:57 PM
The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scott-pd10.1.html)

Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for dollars just before being attacked.



Barack Obama is a LIAR.

You do realize that NOTHING in that rant supports the assertion that the rebels began their assault because of Big Bankster (or whatever you called it), right?

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:09 PM
I had a response to post but now all I can think about is a big block of delicious cheese.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:11 PM
I had a response to post but now all I can think about is a big block of delicious cheese.



And that is how they control us. The insidious manipulation of our cravings for cheese.


Excuse me while I get some pepperoni and Ritz crackers to go with...

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:11 PM
I had a response to post but now all I can think about is a big block of delicious cheese.

You're not going the way of the rats Donger mentioned are ya'?

Cheese is good though容specially artisan cheese.

go bowe
08-22-2011, 03:12 PM
I had a response to post but now all I can think about is a big block of delicious cheese.

traitor!!!

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:16 PM
And that is how they control us. The insidious manipulation of our cravings for cheese.


Excuse me while I get some pepperoni and Ritz crackers to go with...Name me one thing NOT made better by cheese. Go ahead. I'll wait. (that's right, you can't. Because cheese makes everything better. Even Libya it seems)

You're not going the way of the rats Donger mentioned are ya'?

Cheese is good though容specially artisan cheese.Getting distracted by cheese makes me a neocon doesn't it?

:sulk:

:D

traitor!!!
If loving cheese is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Donger
08-22-2011, 03:16 PM
Mmmmmmm. Tillamook Extra Sharp.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:17 PM
Getting distracted by cheese makes me a neocon doesn't it?

If you want it melted.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:20 PM
If you want it melted.

What kind of facist neo-mcarthy shit is this?

I can't melt the cheese? The only thing better than cheese is melted cheese.

I don't care what Lew Rockwell says. I'm melting it.

:#

And besides, wouldn't the neocons just take my cheese because it posed a threat to their national security? (allegedly)

mlyonsd
08-22-2011, 03:28 PM
Mmmmmmm. Tillamook Extra Sharp.Kraft Cracker Barrel Extra Sharp. Once I start eating that on crackers I can't stop.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 03:30 PM
Name me one thing NOT made better by cheese. .

Your health? :hmmm:

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:31 PM
Your health? :hmmm:

Calcium.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 03:32 PM
Calcium.

Bowel Movements and Heart attack! I'm afraid you've been turned to the dark side. :D

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:33 PM
What kind of facist neo-mcarthy shit is this?

I can't melt the cheese? The only thing better than cheese is melted cheese.

I don't care what Lew Rockwell says. I'm melting it.

:#

And besides, wouldn't the neocons just take my cheese because it posed a threat to their national security? (allegedly)

No they'd melt it with freedom bombs or nukes depending on your location.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:38 PM
No they'd melt it with freedom bombs or nukes depending on your location.

They're going to melt my cheese???

Fuck that. I melt my own cheese. They can melt it when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:48 PM
They're going to melt my cheese???

**** that. I melt my own cheese. They can melt it when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

You can so long as you have your debts paid off. In US dollars that is.

orange
08-22-2011, 03:52 PM
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/17725543/view/1/producttypecolor/1/type/png/width/280/height/280/the-cheese-stands-alone_design.png

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:55 PM
Nope. That's the number of the UN Resolution ( 2011).

Here it is:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution

Believe me I caught that before posting it as I thought the same at first.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:57 PM
Name me one thing NOT made better by cheese. Go ahead. I'll wait. (that's right, you can't. Because cheese makes everything better. Even Libya it seems)



.

http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/files/1bodysnatchers.jpg

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 04:01 PM
Yeah, laugh now, why don't you, while you still can. The tentacles of Big Cheese are extending everywhere. Even football, where CheeseHeads take over a stadium every week like clockwork. Cheese...swiss on rye with ham. Cheese, shredded and drizzled over a bowl of chili. Cheddar, with 'roni and Ritz.


So laugh you bastards, but admit it -- it's in damn near everything you eat and you love it!

'cuse me, I need a snack. brb.

evenfall
08-22-2011, 04:04 PM
I don't know if this is something to celebrate. If the report is true about the new constitution being Sharia-based... Well, what expectation can we have about human rights in the new country? Or that it would be friendly to the west?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 04:05 PM
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kyE4CLM0QIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
08-22-2011, 05:05 PM
Yeah, this is just fucking peachy...

Military officials estimate the regime amassed as many as 30,000 Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, before the fighting began. Most are believed to be early-model Russian missiles and launchers.

The U.S. has already sent an interagency team to the region to confer with Libya's neighbors and is providing $3 million to two international weapons abatement teams to locate and dispose of the weapons.

Some missiles have been dismantled, but officials in Algeria and several other nations have raised alarms that other plundered weapons have reached al-Qaeda's North African branch.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 05:25 PM
Yeah, this is just ****ing peachy...

Military officials estimate the regime amassed as many as 30,000 Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, before the fighting began. Most are believed to be early-model Russian missiles and launchers.

The U.S. has already sent an interagency team to the region to confer with Libya's neighbors and is providing $3 million to two international weapons abatement teams to locate and dispose of the weapons.

Some missiles have been dismantled, but officials in Algeria and several other nations have raised alarms that other plundered weapons have reached al-Qaeda's North African branch.

I doubt were supplying Al Ciaduh with ancient Russian weapons.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 05:40 PM
Obama: Kadhafi era over, US will be 'partner'

AFP

CHILMARK, Massachusetts (AFP) - US President Barack Obama on Monday pressed Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi to explicitly give up power and warned joyful rebels against his rule that their struggle was "not over yet."

"But this much is clear: The Kadhafi regime is coming to an end, and the future of Libya is in the hands of its people," Obama said, as he took a 10-day break from Washington on the posh resort island of Martha's Vineyard.

Obama said he had spoken to British Prime Minister David Cameron and that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had held other high-level talks as the West planned for the post-Kadhafi era six months after the uprising began.


The US president, who has faced fire from lawmakers for his handling of the conflict, promised Libya's people that Washington will be "a friend and a partner" as the strife-torn country grapples with the "huge challenges ahead."

With fighting still raging in Tripoli despite rebel claims to hold the city, Obama warned that "the situation is still very fluid, there remains a degree of uncertainty, and there are still regime elements who pose a threat."

"Although it's clear that Kadhafi's rule is over, he still has the opportunity to reduce further bloodshed by explicitly relinquishing power to the people of Libya and calling for those forces that continue to fight to lay down their arms for the sake of Libya," said the US president.

Looking beyond Kadhafi's iron-fisted 42-year rule, Obama called for "an inclusive transition that leads to a democratic Libya" and warned the rebels rebels against targeting regime loyalists.

"True justice will not come from reprisals and violence; it will come from reconciliation and a Libya that allows its citizens to determine their own destiny," Obama said.

"In that effort, the United States will be a friend and a partner," he said, vowing to meet the country's humanitarian needs with "critical supplies" and ultimately support the emerging government with Kadhafi's frozen assets.

But a US Treasury official said those assets, totaling roughly $37 billion dollars, were still locked up for now and that US sanctions on the Kadhafi regime remained in place.

And with a possible post-Kadhafi international peacekeeping mission on the horizon, the Pentagon ruled out the deployment of any US ground troops as part of a UN or NATO ground force.

"If there's going to be some type of transitional mission, that remains to be seen, whether it comes out of the UN or NATO," said a spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan. "But we still do not plan any US forces going on the ground in Libya."

Lapan also said that Kadhafi, who kept out of sight as rebels assailed Tripoli, was thought to still be in Libya, though his exact whereabouts remained unclear.

At the US State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said diplomats from the "Contact Group" comprising mostly countries that took part in NATO's air campaign in support of the rebels would meet in Istanbul Thursday.

Philip Gordon, the assistant US secretary of state for European affairs, will represent the United States at the talks to "coordinate next steps," she said.

Obama said he had directed the US envoy to the United Nations, Susan Rice, to ask UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to use September's general assembly "to support this important transition."

Earlier, Obama discussed the situation in Libya on a conference call with top national security aides, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Clinton, CIA chief Leon Panetta, Rice, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and senior military commanders, the White House said.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/08/obama-kadhafi-era-over-us-will-be.html

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 05:42 PM
What a load of crap!

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 05:51 PM
What a load of crap!

Well ya, but he's our Hocus Pocus Prez.

evenfall
08-22-2011, 07:44 PM
Yeah, this is just fucking peachy...

Military officials estimate the regime amassed as many as 30,000 Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, before the fighting began. Most are believed to be early-model Russian missiles and launchers.

The U.S. has already sent an interagency team to the region to confer with Libya's neighbors and is providing $3 million to two international weapons abatement teams to locate and dispose of the weapons.

Some missiles have been dismantled, but officials in Algeria and several other nations have raised alarms that other plundered weapons have reached al-Qaeda's North African branch.

Same as Egypt... Now that we know who has won,.we can expect Obama to let us know whose side he was on the whole time...

HonestChieffan
08-22-2011, 08:29 PM
Same as Egypt... Now that we know who has won,.we can expect Obama to let us know whose side he was on the whole time...

Not on your side.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 09:36 PM
How long till the ethnic/tribal cleansing starts?

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 11:11 PM
Same as Egypt... Now that we know who has won,.we can expect Obama to let us know whose side he was on the whole time...

Not on your side.



?

What would you guys have done in Libya? Ignore the US's NATO allies and support Khadafy's repressive regime? That what you want to do?

Tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 11:12 PM
How long till the ethnic/tribal cleansing starts?

Yep I need to set my DVR.

Dave Lane
08-22-2011, 11:14 PM
?

What would you guys have done in Libya? Ignore the US's NATO allies and support Khadafy's repressive regime? That what you want to do?

Tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

"They have no answers. They are merely simpletons and hucksters of fallacious dreams"

-George Washington

Dave Lane
08-23-2011, 08:08 AM
Cool article by libyas former PM

Former Libyan PM hopeful for country's future

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Mustapha Ben Halim accuses Gadhafi of of stripping Libya of much of its wealth
Ben Halim served as Prime Minister of Libya for three years, from 1954 to 1957
He was abroad when Gadhafi snatched control of the country in a coup in 1969
The 90-year old says he is hopeful of a brighter future for his homeland

London (CNN) -- Embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is unlikely to give in without a fight, despite rebels storming large areas of Tripoli in recent days, the country's ex-Prime Minister says.
"He will not admit defeat," Mustapha Ben Halim told CNN's Becky Anderson. "I think he might go outside Libya and say that he is going to continue his fight. But I doubt this guy will get the reason, the real thinking, that the circus is finished."
Ben Halim accused Gadhafi, whose exact whereabouts remained a mystery on Tuesday, of stripping Libya of much of its wealth.
Rebels hunt Gadhafi as battles rage
"There is only one way Gadhafi wants to achieve, to have Libya belonging to him," he said. "Not only has he grabbed everything, but there is no control in him, no responsibility, nothing. He does what he likes."
Ben Halim served as Prime Minister of Libya for three years, from 1954 to 1957, and after leaving office worked as an advisor to the country's ruler, King Idris.
When Gadhafi snatched control of the country in a coup in 1969, the politician-turned-businessman was overseas. Unable to return home, he and his family moved to Beirut in Lebanon, before settling in Britain in the 1970s.
Libya's former prime minister speaks out Tribes and Libya's future What's next for Libya? Gadhafi's son: 'Things are fine in Libya' Closing of Gadhafi era?
RELATED TOPICS
Libya
Moammar Gadhafi
Now, more than 40 years on, the 90-year old says he is hopeful of a brighter future for his homeland, as Gadhafi's grip on the country finally appears to be weakening.
"I think we will have a good future, provided we realize that our problems begin the day he goes -- they do not end there," he told CNN.
"The new people -- and I know some of them, and they are excellent people -- but they have to try to start making a real government, a government which guarantees freedom, a government with complete transparency, a government based on a good foundation.
"You have to build on a good basement, which is parliament, the voice of the people."
Ben Halim's son Ahmed said some confusion was inevitable in the transitional period.
"[Gadhafi's] regime is over, Tripoli is taken, our government is going to be coming very soon back to Tripoli... Is there going to be chaos? I think so, for a while, but at the end it will be ordered chaos as the interim council slowly, slowly tries to establish order and people begin to come to their senses.
"As long as they begin to get all these old vestiges of the regime out of the way, things will settle down."
His father said it was vital that whoever formed the country's new government, remembered those who had helped to bring about the huge change in Libya.
"We have about 20,000 thousand martyrs, these 20,000 have left orphans, have left families," he said.
"They have to take care of these people immediately. Also, they have to take care of these people they call revolutionaries, the people who fought with bare hands, and try to form a government where everyone can contribute to it."
Another of Ben Halim's son's, Amr, said recent events and activities in rebel-held Benghazi suggest a positive outlook for the country as a whole.
"What's amazing is that in the last few months in Benghazi there have been over 150 civil society organizations mushrooming up, all are championing democracy, freedom, humanitarian law and active civil society.

"It's fantastic to see... If that's any indication of what the future of Libya is once Gadhafi is out then it's a very great future, I'm greatly encouraged."
And despite living for so long in exile, his sister, the former Prime Minister's daughter, Sherine Jafar, said the news from Tripoli had, for the first time, left her feeling proud of her heritage.

"It's incredible, tremendous," she said. "The fact that I can say in a loud and clear voice, 'I am Libyan,' is the most incredible feeling in the world. What a freedom. Bless the freedom fighters, bless them."

evenfall
08-23-2011, 08:27 AM
?

What would you guys have done in Libya? Ignore the US's NATO allies and support Khadafy's repressive regime? That what you want to do?

Tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Of course not, on supporting Gaddafi.

In my opinion we had no compelling interest and shouldn't have been there. I am glad it worked out without much bloodshed, but I would have let the situation alone.

We have to be prepared to act when we are threatened directly or when the stakes are high enough internationally, but this doesn't meet any such standard.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 09:01 AM
Of course not, on supporting Gaddafi.

In my opinion we had no compelling interest and shouldn't have been there. I am glad it worked out without much bloodshed, but I would have let the situation alone.


Without much bloodshed? By whose standard? I think alot of Libyans would disagree with you.

No compelling interest? When Libya sits astride the Mediterranean not far from several of our closest allies? When it produces and exports substantial quantities of oil? When it could become another hotbed of radical Islam supporting those who have sworn to attack our country?

Where the hell do we have compelling interests then? Only in Mexico, Canada and Cuba?


We have to be prepared to act when we are threatened directly or when the stakes are high enough internationally, but this doesn't meet any such standard.


Again, who determines that? Apparently the President and his foreign policy team decided that you were wrong about how high the stakes were, and determined that a relatively small, back-seat involvement in the situation was warranted.

Note also that some of our best allies were basically begging the US to bring its unique capabilities to the table to assist them in their efforts. Since Libya is literally in their back yard, I'm sure they had a very different view of the stakes.

Saul Good
08-23-2011, 09:17 AM
How is this preventing Libya from being a hotbed of radical Islam?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 09:18 AM
How is this preventing Libya from being a hotbed of radical Islam?


It's not, but at least you get a chance to have some input. If you sit on the sidelines, you get the cards you're dealt and have nothing to complain about if you don't like them.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2011, 09:20 AM
"They have no answers. They are merely simpletons and hucksters of fallacious dreams"

-George Washington

Bad when Bush does it.
Good when a Democrat prez does it.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 09:23 AM
Bad when Bush does it.
Good when a Democrat prez does it.



Discussed and answered. Read the thread.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2011, 09:29 AM
Welcome to NATO痴 New Colony, Libya (http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis254.html)

Is about the size of it.

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 09:29 AM
Discussed and answered. Read the thread.I must have missed the post proving Libya was an imminent national threat. Could you point me to it?

evenfall
08-23-2011, 09:54 AM
Without much bloodshed? By whose standard? I think alot of Libyans would disagree with you.

No compelling interest? When Libya sits astride the Mediterranean not far from several of our closest allies? When it produces and exports substantial quantities of oil? When it could become another hotbed of radical Islam supporting those who have sworn to attack our country?

Where the hell do we have compelling interests then? Only in Mexico, Canada and Cuba?





Again, who determines that? Apparently the President and his foreign policy team decided that you were wrong about how high the stakes were, and determined that a relatively small, back-seat involvement in the situation was warranted.

Note also that some of our best allies were basically begging the US to bring its unique capabilities to the table to assist them in their efforts. Since Libya is literally in their back yard, I'm sure they had a very different view of the stakes.

Were you singing this tune in 2003?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 09:55 AM
I must have missed the post proving Libya was an imminent national threat. Could you point me to it?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7842242&postcount=80

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 09:56 AM
Were you singing this tune in 2003?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7842242&postcount=80

Frankie
08-23-2011, 09:58 AM
I have not read this thread so far. But this Obama dude is quite an enigma. I fully expected him to be strong in domestic policy and maybe lacking in foreign policy.

Dammit, it seems it's the other way around. He has been making correct decisions when it comes to handling foreign issues big or small. From the pirates episode, to Bin Laden, to Libya, he IMO has excelled.

I just wish he'd show the same backbone and savviness in domestic issues as well.

MOhillbilly
08-23-2011, 09:59 AM
God love humans. War without end. Best ant farm EVAH!

evenfall
08-23-2011, 10:01 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7842242&postcount=80

I respect that, but I don't agree. I think the two situations and the arguments for are remarkably similar. They are different in scale, but not that much else.

In both cases we decided it was worth our time and money to topple a foreign government. The scale doesn't matter that much as to the "is this right" calculation. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Saul Good
08-23-2011, 10:01 AM
It's not, but at least you get a chance to have some input. If you sit on the sidelines, you get the cards you're dealt and have nothing to complain about if you don't like them.

You support putting our hands in the middle of this?

I'm not criticizing the way this was handled, but I think it's going to be ugly under the new government. If it does, guess who is going to get the blame.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:02 AM
Welcome to NATO痴 New Colony, Libya (http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis254.html)

Is about the size of it.


If Lewrockwell.com says it, it must be true.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:05 AM
I respect that, but I don't agree. I think the two situations and the arguments for are remarkably similar. They are different in scale, but not that much else.

In both cases we decided it was worth our time and money to topple a foreign government. The scale doesn't matter that much as to the "is this right" calculation. In for a penny, in for a pound.


Here's we have a true coalition, which we're not even leading -- because we don't want to. The risk of American blood and expenditure of American treasure is insignificant compared to the Iraqi commitment.

Second, this was supporting an indigineous uprising, not undertaking a wholly foreign (to Iraq) effort to overthrow the government. BIG difference.

Or do you view the French helping the Americans in the American Revolution the same as, say, the French conquests under Napoleon?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:09 AM
You support putting our hands in the middle of this?

We're on the periphery of this, not "in the middle". How do you get "in the middle"? Many of our NATO allies are more active than we are in this.

I'm not criticizing the way this was handled, but I think it's going to be ugly under the new government. If it does, guess who is going to get the blame.


It may well be ugly under the new government. What was the winning move? Staying out of it and letting Khadafy, whom the international community detests, kill thousands of his own people? In doing so we ignore the begging of our NATO allies, many of whom helped us in past wars simply because we asked? Way to be a friend.

US to allies: Hey, come help fight this war. It's really important to us. Plus, the country is led by a complete dickhead.

Allies: Well, we're not really eager.

US: C'mon! We're your leader. We backed you up against the Russians all those years and stuff.

Allies: Ok, fine, I guess...

[years later]

Allies to US: Hey, come help with this situation. No boots on the ground. Just some missiles, intelligence and air cover. It's really important to us. Plus, the country is led by a complete dickhead.

US: Fuck off.


:shake:

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:10 AM
I guess the old Khadafy, which I remember from growing up, is outdated. Qaddafi seems to be in. Guess I need to adjust on that.

Saul Good
08-23-2011, 10:15 AM
We're on the periphery of this, not "in the middle". How do you get "in the middle"? Many of our NATO allies are more active than we are in this.




It may well be ugly under the new government. What was the winning move? Staying out of it and letting Khadafy, whom the international community detests, kill thousands of his own people? In doing so we ignore the begging of our NATO allies, many of whom helped us in past wars simply because we asked? Way to be a friend.

US to allies: Hey, come help fight this war. It's really important to us. Plus, the country is led by a complete dickhead.

Allies: Well, we're not really eager.

US: C'mon! We're your leader. We backed you up against the Russians all those years and stuff.

Allies: Ok, fine, I guess...

[years later]

Allies to US: Hey, come help with this situation. No boots on the ground. Just some missiles, intelligence and air cover. It's really important to us. Plus, the country is led by a complete dickhead.

US: **** off.


:shake:

I'm pretty sure we've done our part in the past. We've helped the move 10 times, and we did most of the packing, lifting, provided the truck, bought the gas, and paid the security deposit after dirt got tracked in.

In return, they gave us the number for U-Haul. I don't think we are now obligated to do their heavy lifting again.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 10:18 AM
Here's we have a true coalition, which we're not even leading -- because we don't want to. The risk of American blood and expenditure of American treasure is insignificant compared to the Iraqi commitment.

Second, this was supporting an indigineous uprising, not undertaking a wholly foreign (to Iraq) effort to overthrow the government. BIG difference.

Or do you view the French helping the Americans in the American Revolution the same as, say, the French conquests under Napoleon?

The question isn't whether we are leading or the dollars expended, in my opinion, its whether we have an interest there. I don't see how we had an interest in Libya.

Iraq was a much larger and more influential country, had a history of belligerence in the region, according to our mistaken Intel, had a weapons program, and was openly in defiance of the ceasefire from desert storm. Saddam et al had made a much stronger case that they were a threat to affect the stability of the middle east and thus of the entire world - politically, militarily, economically.

Libya much more closely fits the profile. Obama has for Iran, a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat. Does Libya have oil, certainly. In what other ways had Gaddafi painted a Target on himself? He's governing the same way as he has for decades. He hasn't really been belligerent internationally since the 80s.

I don't mean to impugne your honor because I don't know you, but the idea all these liberals would be praising Bush if he'd started in on this while Iraq and Afghanistan were still going on is just laughable.

Gaddafi was just one of dozens of generic dictators around the world at any time. I'm glad this has worked out without any American deaths that I know of and without an enormous monetary expenditure. But all we have done is eliminate a non-threat, and like it or not, if radical Islamists take over we are going to be significantly worse off 20 years from now. We could look at this like the Shah of Iran, whom if we'd supported, would have given us a much better 30 or 40 year outcome than the Ayatollahs.

I feel that we had no interest here so there is truly no victory for the US. And we are playing with fire, vis-a-via the Islamists who are no doubt ready to move in.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:19 AM
I'm pretty sure we've done our part in the past. We've helped the move 10 times, and we did most of the packing, lifting, provided the truck, bought the gas, and paid the security deposit after dirt got tracked in.

In return, they gave us the number for U-Haul. I don't think we are now obligated to do their heavy lifting again.


That's fine, but if you're gonna call it quits, then you should realize they will to.

Memories are short among countries as well as people. Nobody gives a shit about Lend-lease or the Marshall Plan or even the Cold War anymore. Hell, many foreign countries would argue that we were only doing those things and helping Europe to help ourselves, not out of any grand sense of charity.

Brock
08-23-2011, 10:20 AM
"They have no answers. They are merely simpletons and hucksters of fallacious dreams"

-George Washington

I do not believe George Washington ever said the word "huckster". Probably not "fallacious" either.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 10:26 AM
I do not believe George Washington ever said the word "huckster". Probably not "fallacious" either.

"Those who would trade made-up internet quotes for internet message forum capital deserve neither message forums nor internets" - Thomas Jefferson

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 10:29 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7842242&postcount=80While I concur with the analysis in your post that Libya and Iraq are completely two different animals it doesn't deflect from Obama's own words of when military force by a president is justified and constitutional.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/obama-on-war-then-and-now/

Bush would have been crucified if he had spent a billion dollars bombing Libya after Iraq. Obama gets a pass.

BEP's post still rings true in my eyes.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:44 AM
I do not believe George Washington ever said the word "huckster". Probably not "fallacious" either.


Probably not. That quote looks really similar to an Eisenhower quote that I've seen, however.

Pants
08-23-2011, 10:45 AM
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction & the US was under threat of attack from Iraq. Thats why we had to invade & occupy & lose thousands of American lives & spend trillions that went onto the national debt that our children will pay for. Oh wait... the Bush admin changed the reason to Saddam was a dictator that kills his own people. That reason then became reason enough & is almost uniformly defended by righties.



Like Saddam was, Khadadfy is also a dictator that kills his own people. But because Obama is in charge now, righties now reject the very excuse they use for Iraq & decry the US lending some air support to Libyans overthrowing their own dictator. No Americans killed. No trillions spent. No future bankruptcy to our children. But overthrowing the murderous dictator of Libya with little cost is suddenly bad now cuz a Dem is Commander in Chief. Overthrowing the murderous dictator of Iraq at enormous cost in lives & national debt is the much preferred way to go cuz a Republi was in charge. Thats "principle" for you....

Nice post, man. Too bad it went ignored.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 10:49 AM
While I concur with the analysis in your post that Libya and Iraq are completely two different animals it doesn't deflect from Obama's own words of when military force by a president is justified and constitutional.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/obama-on-war-then-and-now/

Bush would have been crucified if he had spent a billion dollars bombing Libya after Iraq. Obama gets a pass.

BEP's post still rings true in my eyes.



Bush had established himself as far-too-excited in playing the military card at every opportunity. As such, he had more than burnt up his benefit of a doubt when it came to deploying the military.

With new personnel comes a new benefit of the doubt. Obama has not shown such predilictions.

Obviously, each party's members gives their own guys far more benefit of the doubt than the other party.

IMHO I wouldn't have chastized Bush for doing what Obama has done in Libya. It is a measured, limited involvement in a situation that has a fair degree of strategic importance to us. It's also not a situation that we CAUSED.

Pants
08-23-2011, 10:58 AM
While I concur with the analysis in your post that Libya and Iraq are completely two different animals it doesn't deflect from Obama's own words of when military force by a president is justified and constitutional.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/obama-on-war-then-and-now/

Bush would have been crucified if he had spent a billion dollars bombing Libya after Iraq. Obama gets a pass.

BEP's post still rings true in my eyes.

Comparing Libya to Iraq is like comparing an ant to an elephant. Actually, since the Iraq War was not started by the Iraqi people rebelling against their dictator, it's more like comparing a grape to an elephant.

Donger
08-23-2011, 11:03 AM
It's also not a situation that we CAUSED.

I could have sworn that many liberals gave credit to Obama for the "Arab Spring." Is that incorrect?

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 11:19 AM
Bush had established himself as far-too-excited in playing the military card at every opportunity. As such, he had more than burnt up his benefit of a doubt when it came to deploying the military.

With new personnel comes a new benefit of the doubt. Obama has not shown such predilictions.

Obviously, each party's members gives their own guys far more benefit of the doubt than the other party.

IMHO I wouldn't have chastized Bush for doing what Obama has done in Libya. It is a measured, limited involvement in a situation that has a fair degree of strategic importance to us. It's also not a situation that we CAUSED.Again, ignoring Obama's own words when his actions go a different direction proves BEP's point.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 12:25 PM
I could have sworn that many liberals gave credit to Obama for the "Arab Spring." Is that incorrect?



No idea what "many liberals" have done, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Personally, I'd credit Arab Spring to many, many factors and to the degree Obama gets any credit, it'd be pretty darn small.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 12:28 PM
Again, ignoring Obama's own words when his actions go a different direction proves BEP's point.


Ignoring his own words regarding when he has Constitutional authority? What does that have to do with anything we're debating?

For good or for bad, it seems like everyone has a different (more expansive) view of the powers of the POTUS once they're sitting in the chair, starting with at least Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.

orange
08-23-2011, 12:45 PM
For good or for bad, it seems like everyone has a different (more expansive) view of the powers of the POTUS once they're sitting in the chair, starting with at least Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.

Movers gotta move, shakers gotta shake.

orange
08-23-2011, 12:51 PM
Again, ignoring Obama's own words when his actions go a different direction proves BEP's point.

Since you now believe that Obama's own words matter, let's look at a few more of them, shall we?


I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing nave -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

read more: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/12/obamas_nobel_peace_prize_speec.html

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Ignoring his own words regarding when he has Constitutional authority? What does that have to do with anything we're debating?

For good or for bad, it seems like everyone has a different (more expansive) view of the powers of the POTUS once they're sitting in the chair, starting with at least Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.It only has to do with BEP's statement. What's good for Obama is bad for Bush. Nation building and using the military is the cats meow when its your guy doing it.

This Libya thing is a perfect example of that.

I don't really care, Ghaddafi (or however you spell it) should have been carpet bombed until dead after the Pan Am incident.

Just pointing out the obvious.

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 01:17 PM
Since you now believe that Obama's own words matter, let's look at a few more of them, shall we?
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing nave -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

read more: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/12/obamas_nobel_peace_prize_speec.html
So either he was lying before or he's growing up. Which do you prefer?

Pants
08-23-2011, 01:19 PM
It only has to do with BEP's statement. What's good for Obama is bad for Bush. Nation building and using the military is the cats meow when its your guy doing it.

This Libya thing is a perfect example of that.

I don't really care, Ghaddafi (or however you spell it) should have been carpet bombed until dead after the Pan Am incident.

Just pointing out the obvious.

Do you always think in black and white? Are we nation building in Libya? What's our occupation force over there and how long have been there now?

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 01:23 PM
Do you always think in black and white? Are we nation building in Libya? What's our occupation force over there and how long have been there now?Yes I'm pretty sure when you step in the middle of a civil war and use your weapons to kill people so one side wins that would be considered nation building.

What do you call it? A humanitarian effort?

Pants
08-23-2011, 01:28 PM
Yes I'm pretty sure when you step in the middle of a civil war and use your weapons to kill people so one side wins that would be considered nation building.

What do you call it? A humanitarian effort?

I don't know, I think nation building is something akin to what happened in Iraq. You know, where we send 145,000-man strong invasion force, take over the country and start building a nation (starting with the infrastructure destroyed during the invasion) for the next 8.5 years spending trillions of dollars in the process.

Helping rebels with some airstrikes is not something I would call nation building.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:39 PM
So either he was lying before or he's growing up. Which do you prefer?

Neither. He wasn't "lying before," he was just as equivocal as ever.

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

You try to read an absolute prohibition into that at your own peril. The FactCheck guys couldn't: In the end, we leave it for you to decide if the president acted preemptively and without constitutional authority — questions that have come up in other conflicts without resolution.

And as for Libya - he did not act unilaterally. He had authorization. He acted under his authority - granted by Congress - to enforce a U.N. resolution. And he also had a Senate resolution calling on him to enforce a no-fly zone.

The Paulization of the GOP in order to oppose Obama on everything is a comedy in an unending number of acts.

mlyonsd
08-23-2011, 03:02 PM
Neither. He wasn't "lying before," he was just as equivocal as ever.


Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.


As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

You try to read an absolute prohibition into that at your own peril. The FactCheck guys couldn't: In the end, we leave it for you to decide if the president acted preemptively and without constitutional authority questions that have come up in other conflicts without resolution.

And as for Libya - he did not act unilaterally. He had authorization. He acted under his authority - granted by Congress - to enforce a U.N. resolution. And he also had a Senate resolution calling on him to enforce a no-fly zone.

The Paulization of the GOP in order to oppose Obama on everything is a comedy in an unending number of acts.I'm not implying Obama's use of the military on Libya was unconstitutional. His words in 2007 were either a lie or he was very mistaken. I'll let you decide.

And again, when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own civilians, Bush bad, Obama good.

orange
08-23-2011, 03:04 PM
And again, when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own civilians, Bush bad, Obama good.

When it comes to buying a hamburger, $3000 bad, $3 good.

go bowe
08-23-2011, 11:36 PM
So either he was lying before or he's growing up. Which do you prefer?

growing up...






do i get a prize?

go bowe
08-23-2011, 11:42 PM
When it comes to buying a hamburger, $3000 bad, $3 good.

$3?

what kind of hamburg do you eat out there in donkey land?

three dollars? is that a horseburger or what?

go bowe
08-23-2011, 11:44 PM
I'm not implying Obama's use of the military on Libya was unconstitutional. His words in 2007 were either a lie or he was very mistaken. I'll let you decide.

And again, when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own civilians, Bush bad, Obama good.

i dunno...

when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own people, bush good, obama good...

but that's only one facet of the comparison...

cost, scope, duration etc. in iraq = huge...

cost, scope, duration etc. in lybia = tiny...

tiny > huge...

orange
08-24-2011, 12:06 AM
$3?

what kind of hamburg do you eat out there in donkey land?

three dollars? is that a horseburger or what?

$3 seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me.

Other folks, too.

How much does a Whopper cost at Burger King...?
i am doing a school paper on it and everything on these computers is blocked and i dont have time to do it at home...please help......thanks......

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
$2.69
with cheese $2.99

Promotionals: $0.99

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_Whopper_cost_at_Burger_King

Certainly much, much closer to $3 than to $3000.

Now, whether Burger King uses horse meat is a question that I don't even want to get involved in.

You want to go upscale a little? $3 can still get you a smashburger. No horse. Jealous?

RedNeckRaider
08-24-2011, 06:15 AM
$3?

what kind of hamburg do you eat out there in donkey land?

three dollars? is that a horseburger or what?

I have always pictured you as a well off lawyer type, but dang bo you can get $3 hamburgers everywhere. That is unless you only eat them at fancy restaurants~

mlyonsd
08-24-2011, 07:54 AM
i dunno...

when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own people, bush good, obama good...

but that's only one facet of the comparison...

cost, scope, duration etc. in iraq = huge...

cost, scope, duration etc. in lybia = tiny...

tiny > huge...That's not the tune some were singing back in 2004-06 and you know it. Any kind of nation building was frowned upon by some because of who was doing it. The number of people murdered by dictators was irrelevant only until this president took the helm.

If we use our military to save lives don't believe in the false impression you're morally superior because you did it with less sacrifice.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 11:03 AM
i dunno...

when it comes to overthrowing dictators that murder their own people, bush good, obama good...

but that's only one facet of the comparison...

cost, scope, duration etc. in iraq = huge...

cost, scope, duration etc. in lybia = tiny...

tiny > huge...

Libya has the highest standard of living on the entire continent of Africa. Is this really a country that needs to be overthrown?

orange
08-24-2011, 11:53 AM
Any kind of nation building was frowned upon by some because of who was doing it.

I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.
Nov. 6, 2000 George W. Bush
Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. (more)

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.
Oct. 11, 2000 George W. Bush
Somalia. It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either. (more)

A nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not.
Oct. 11, 2000 George W. Bush
I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops. (more)

He [Gore] believes in nation building. I would be very careful ...
Oct. 4, 2000 George W. Bush (Presidential debate, Oct. 4, 2000)
I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in national building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.


http://zfacts.com/p/136.html

orange
08-24-2011, 11:56 AM
:)

Jaric
08-24-2011, 12:06 PM
Yes Orange, that's the point. Dubya's nation building was bad. So is Obama's.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 12:09 PM
Why is "the POTUS before me whom I've spent years calling an idiot did it, so I can to" such a go-to move for Obama?

Jaric
08-24-2011, 12:11 PM
Why is "the POTUS before me whom I've spent years calling an idiot did it, so I can to" such a go-to move for Obama?

Because people buy it for some reason?

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 12:15 PM
Because people buy it for some reason?

Well, 38% of them, anyway.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 12:23 PM
Well, 38% of them, anyway.

That's far more than it should be.

go bowe
08-24-2011, 12:24 PM
$3 seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me.

Other folks, too.

How much does a Whopper cost at Burger King...?
i am doing a school paper on it and everything on these computers is blocked and i dont have time to do it at home...please help......thanks......

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
$2.69
with cheese $2.99

Promotionals: $0.99

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_Whopper_cost_at_Burger_King

Certainly much, much closer to $3 than to $3000.

Now, whether Burger King uses horse meat is a question that I don't even want to get involved in.

You want to go upscale a little? $3 can still get you a smashburger. No horse. Jealous?

jealous? hell yes... :D :D :D

Pants
08-24-2011, 12:24 PM
Yes Orange, that's the point. Dubya's nation building was bad. So is Obama's.

I don't think anyone would have blamed Bush for nation building if Iraqi people rose up against Saddam and we gave them M249's and dropped some air strikes in Iraq. I don't think anyone would even call that nation building, honestly.

orange
08-24-2011, 12:41 PM
You haven't a clue, I posted this because you won't see this coverage from CNN and I know the Obama administration does anything but tell the truth. You're stuck in derpland my boy.

You know your KGB "reporter" who kept crying about how the rebels had no respect for the press? I wonder how he's going to report this story:

TRIPOLI, Libya — International journalists were freed Wednesday from the Rixos Hotel after being held for five days by armed men loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.

The dozens of journalists were taken in Red Cross cars and vans to another Tripoli hotel, where they hugged friends and colleagues, many crying.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was talking to loyalist forces about the journalists' safety on Wednesday when they were suddenly informed that Gadhafi's men were ready to release them.

"We were able to gather everyone in four cars, no problem," said George Comninos, the Red Cross' head of delegation in Tripoli. "Of course, it was still a tense situation."

read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44257348/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

go bowe
08-24-2011, 12:42 PM
That's not the tune some were singing back in 2004-06 and you know it. Any kind of nation building was frowned upon by some because of who was doing it. The number of people murdered by dictators was irrelevant only until this president took the helm.

If we use our military to save lives don't believe in the false impression you're morally superior because you did it with less sacrifice.

yes i know that some were singing a different tune, but this here is my tune...

nation building seems like too expensive a pastime to enjoy very much...

in hindsight, nation building was and is a bad idea, regardless of who is trying to do it...

and, again, i'm well aware of the arguments coming from some liberal dems but personally i think it wasn't so much of murdering dictators that mattered as it was supporting freedom (for a change) and not just talking about it...

whatever we do (militarily or financially) in the me and elsewhere to support freedom and democracy makes me especially proud to be an american...

and no, i don't feel morally superior at all...

i just think libya was a fantastic return on a very small investment and in that sense (only) was better than our efforts in iraq and afghanistan...

orange
08-24-2011, 12:43 PM
jealous? hell yes... :D :D :D

I saw a picture of a Burger King menu board in San Diego (couldn't find one for Denver) where everything was over $4.50, so you're not alone.

go bowe
08-24-2011, 12:45 PM
Libya has the highest standard of living on the entire continent of Africa. Is this really a country that needs to be overthrown?

overthrown?

nope...

for me the point is that it was a popular democratic revolution that needed to be supported by other democratic countries, and it was...

mlyonsd
08-24-2011, 01:17 PM
I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.
Nov. 6, 2000 George W. Bush
Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. (more)

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.
Oct. 11, 2000 George W. Bush
Somalia. It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either. (more)

A nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not.
Oct. 11, 2000 George W. Bush
I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops. (more)

He [Gore] believes in nation building. I would be very careful ...
Oct. 4, 2000 George W. Bush (Presidential debate, Oct. 4, 2000)
I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in national building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.


http://zfacts.com/p/136.html

Interesting.

From these quotes we can clearly see a pre-911 version of Bush where his viewpoints are anti-neocon.

What do you suppose were the triggers for Obama to turn into a neocon?

go bowe
08-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Interesting.

From these quotes we can clearly see a pre-911 version of Bush where his viewpoints are anti-neocon.

What do you suppose were the triggers for Obama to turn into a neocon?

obama could turn into tinker bell, and he'd still be despised by the right...

BucEyedPea
08-24-2011, 09:33 PM
"The rebels are making it very clear (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/19470/Business/Economy/Europe-leads-Libyan-oil-race-as-rebels-warn-Russia.aspx) that they will reshuffle oil contracts.

China, Russia, and Brazil are the losers, especially China. China no doubt regrets not using its veto in the Security Council. The West's propensity to use force of arms and political manipulations to get what it wants, while thwarting China's market-based ambitions, is bound to firm up the resolve of China to become a major military power. Iran, having seen Gaddafi fall, is bound to redouble its efforts to get the bomb. Iran has a greatly enhanced incentive to ally itself with Pakistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is bound to strengthen itself and possibly admit new members." ~ Michael S. Rozeff (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/93622.html)

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 09:54 PM
You know your KGB "reporter" who kept crying about how the rebels had no respect for the press? I wonder how he's going to report this story:

TRIPOLI, Libya International journalists were freed Wednesday from the Rixos Hotel after being held for five days by armed men loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.

The dozens of journalists were taken in Red Cross cars and vans to another Tripoli hotel, where they hugged friends and colleagues, many crying.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was talking to loyalist forces about the journalists' safety on Wednesday when they were suddenly informed that Gadhafi's men were ready to release them.

"We were able to gather everyone in four cars, no problem," said George Comninos, the Red Cross' head of delegation in Tripoli. "Of course, it was still a tense situation."

read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44257348/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

This heals all the dead women and children.