Sign in to follow this  
Guest

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

 

Saorsa, on 22 May 2014 - 00:58, said:

 

Battlecheese, on 22 May 2014 - 00:37, said:

 

Saorsa, on 21 May 2014 - 22:37, said:

I still favor Whack-a-mole as a strategy.

Presumably you will also continue to be mystified by all the "crazy" people who join anti-US terrorist groups.

When have I ever said anything like that?

Well, you favour the "whack-a-mole" strategy.

Seems like a funny choice if you already know and understand that it makes your problems worse.

 

Really? It's the nation building that gets fucked up.

 

If you decide to go to war, get in do what needs doing and get the hell out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Saorsa, on 22 May 2014 - 00:58, said:

 

Battlecheese, on 22 May 2014 - 00:37, said:

 

Saorsa, on 21 May 2014 - 22:37, said:

I still favor Whack-a-mole as a strategy.

Presumably you will also continue to be mystified by all the "crazy" people who join anti-US terrorist groups.

When have I ever said anything like that?

Well, you favour the "whack-a-mole" strategy.

Seems like a funny choice if you already know and understand that it makes your problems worse.

 

I'm curious, cheese. Since you don't favor WAM and you don't favor nation building. What do you think our alternative is when we find terrorists plotting to attack our country? What should we do? Turn the other cheek and take our medicine for being so bad in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, cheese. Since you don't favor WAM and you don't favor nation building. What do you think our alternative is when we find terrorists plotting to attack our country?

I'm not sure your question relates terribly well to the topic we were discussing. Why do you suddenly want to talk about terrorists?

What should we do? Turn the other cheek and take our medicine for being so bad in the past?

Well, you're trying to rescue the plane after the engines have already fallen off here. You needed to be paying attention to this shit ages ago.

 

The solution is obviously mostly political, and most of the difficulties seem to revolve around one particular issue. Good luck addressing it though.

 

Even if you do all the right stuff, you will still spend decades fending off people who've lost everything and everyone and who just want to hurt americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm curious, cheese. Since you don't favor WAM and you don't favor nation building. What do you think our alternative is when we find terrorists plotting to attack our country?

I'm not sure your question relates terribly well to the topic we were discussing. Why do you suddenly want to talk about terrorists?

>What should we do? Turn the other cheek and take our medicine for being so bad in the past?

Well, you're trying to rescue the plane after the engines have already fallen off here. You needed to be paying attention to this shit ages ago.

 

The solution is obviously mostly political, and most of the difficulties seem to revolve around one particular issue. Good luck addressing it though.

 

Even if you do all the right stuff, you will still spend decades fending off people who've lost everything and everyone and who just want to hurt americans.

 

 

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm curious, cheese. Since you don't favor WAM and you don't favor nation building. What do you think our alternative is when we find terrorists plotting to attack our country?

I'm not sure your question relates terribly well to the topic we were discussing. Why do you suddenly want to talk about terrorists?

>What should we do? Turn the other cheek and take our medicine for being so bad in the

past?
Well, you're trying to rescue the plane after the engines have already fallen off here. You needed to be paying attention to this shit ages ago.

 

The solution is obviously mostly political, and most of the difficulties seem to revolve around one particular issue. Good luck addressing it though.

 

Even if you do all the right stuff, you will still spend decades fending off people who've lost everything and everyone and who just want to hurt americans.

 

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

 

 

My dad used to say that a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

Of course. But these long-term issues are just too much like hard-work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

Of course. But these long-term issues are just too much like hard-work.

These days, war may be political, but it is driven by economics. It is a great way to get the many to borrow money that can be transferred to the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is political.

 

The actual quote is from Clausewitz, Carl von:

 

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

Of course. But these long-term issues are just too much like hard-work.

 

 

These days, war may be political, but it is driven by economics. It is a great way to get the many to borrow money that can be transferred to the few.

 

 

These days?

There are very few wars ever in history that did not start as a trade war of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The solution is obviously mostly political, and most of the difficulties seem to revolve around one particular issue. Good luck addressing it though.

 

Even if you do all the right stuff, you will still spend decades fending off people who've lost everything and everyone and who just want to hurt americans.

 

Whatever, what's done is done - there is no turning back the clock now. So again, given the current situation -what is "all the right stuff" we should be doing", IYHO?

 

BTW - what is that one particular issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Saorsa, on 22 May 2014 - 00:58, said:

 

 

 

Battlecheese, on 22 May 2014 - 00:37, said:

 

 

 

Saorsa, on 21 May 2014 - 22:37, said:

I still favor Whack-a-mole as a strategy.

 

Presumably you will also continue to be mystified by all the "crazy" people who join anti-US terrorist groups.

When have I ever said anything like that?

Well, you favour the "whack-a-mole" strategy.

Seems like a funny choice if you already know and understand that it makes your problems worse.

I'm curious, cheese. Since you don't favor WAM and you don't favor nation building. What do you think our alternative is when we find terrorists plotting to attack our country? What should we do? Turn the other cheek and take our medicine for being so bad in the past?

How do you prevent blowback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War is political. The military just bleeds for failed statesmanship.

Of course. But these long-term issues are just too much like hard-work.

 

These days, war may be political, but it is driven by economics. It is a great way to get the many to borrow money that can be transferred to the few.

 

These days?

There are very few wars ever in history that did not start as a trade war of some sort.

Indeed, but trade wars had an objective other than the use of military goods. When the US fires off a bunch of Tomahawks, we usually are not defending the US, but we are always enriching Rayetheon shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

How do you prevent blowback?

 

Well, the best way to do it is to turn down the gas port a bit if you have an adjustable one. Or alternatively, you can get a special type of charging handle that helps with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but trade wars had an objective other than the use of military goods. When the US fires off a bunch of Tomahawks, we usually are not defending the US, but we are always enriching Rayetheon shareholders.

Tis a sad reflection on our times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The solution is obviously mostly political, and most of the difficulties seem to revolve around one particular issue. Good luck addressing it though.

 

Even if you do all the right stuff, you will still spend decades fending off people who've lost everything and everyone and who just want to hurt americans.

Whatever, what's done is done - there is no turning back the clock now. So again, given the current situation -what is "all the right stuff" we should be doing", IYHO?

 

 

Well, we gotta start by not pissing so many people off.

 

Foreign policy should take a large swerve towards being more isolationist. Arrange national resources so that the country is not dependant on particular arrangments in distant lands.

 

Trust populations to select their own leaders through whatever mechanisms they find acceptable.

Permit distant countries to resolve amongst themselves the finer details of their borders and soverenty.

 

If the actions of a country are not approved of, then feel free to take whatever steps seem to be appropriate.

But do this evenly, without blatently favoring particular countries.

BTW - what is that one particular issue?

It must not be named lest MikeW be summoned and spam us all to death.

I'm sure you can work it out. It's only mentioned in nearly every fucking diatribe made by people who try to kill americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flashback: Nearly as effective as the "WMD’s in Iraq” bull crap as pretext for war... :lol:

 

How many of you fell for both?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

BTW - what is that one particular issue?

It must not be named lest MikeW be summoned and spam us all to death.

I'm sure you can work it out. It's only mentioned in nearly every fucking diatribe made by people who try to kill americans.

 

That they hate us for our Freedoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking up on Libya


Three years ago the United States participated in a military intervention ( a "kinetic military action" according to a White House with no interest in getting the OK from Congress) in Libya to assist an assortment of rebels in overthrowing the government of Col. Moammar al-Qaddafi. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone be imposed on Libya and the use of military force to "protect civilians" on March 17. A few days later Western military operations began. In announcing U.S. involvement while on a trip to Brazil, President Obama pointed to approval of the action from the United Nations, NATO, and the Arab League (later rescinded in part). He did not seek nor receive Congressional authorization. At the same time, Congress failed to defund or otherwise stop the military intervention—the House leadership sunk bills that would achieve that in favor of toothless resolutions expressing displeasure.

 

By October, rebels were finally able to track down Qaddafi, with the help of U.S. surveillance and a bombing run, and sodomized and killed him. Eventually a new government was formed. President Obama used Qaddafi's death to claim the intervention in Libya as a foreign policy success and a show of U.S. strength. "This comes at a time when we see the strength of American leadership across the world. We've taken out al Qaeda leaders, and we've put them on the path to defeat," the president said. "We're winding down the war in Iraq and have begun a transition in Afghanistan. And now, working in Libya with friends and allies, we've demonstrated what collective action can achieve in the 21st century."

 

So what's going on in Libya less than three years later? From the United Nations Support Mission in Libya:

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya has been reducing its staff in Libya for the past week because of the prevailing security conditions in the country. We made an announcement about that a few days ago. The reasons behind this are purely due to concerns for the safety and security of the staff.

After the latest fighting on Sunday and because of the closure of Tripoli International Airport, the Mission concluded that it would not be possible to continue its work in delivering advice and technical support while at the same time ensuring the security and safety of its staff as well as their freedom of movement.

The U.N. called on armed groups in Libya to "refrain from the use of violence to achieve political ends."

 

Because using violence to achieve political ends is only OK under UN authorization, which makes sense given their proven track record of fixing problems without creating new ones that are worse.

 

Good thing we had the excess defense capability to help the French out on this one. Glad to see it's all going so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission accomplished! "This comes at a time when we see the strength of American leadership across the world. We've taken out al Qaeda leaders, and we've put them on the path to defeat. whistling.gif PS. Need a loan for another 500m to send to extremists trying to overthrow Assad..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that article:

 

Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be “caught trying.” In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.

 

 

Really? Her director of policy planning was Slaughter?

 

If you wrote that into a movie it would be over the top.

 

Hillary's bias in favor of action is the essence of interventionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might (will) be"

 

Where's the anti-war party now? Fucking hypocrites...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might (will) be"

 

Where's the anti-war party now? Fucking hypocrites...

 

Not all. This one resigned from the DNC and endorsed Bernie

 

Speaking with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night, Gabbard added, "Secretary Clinton has a record and positions that will take us into a future that will include more interventionist wars of regime change."

 

 

...

 

 

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams asked Gabbard if she was worried about "how unpleasant life could be" in Congress if Clinton wins the presidency, to which she conceded that "a lot of people warned me" about the consequences of her decision but she remains resolute because "war is a very real thing. It's real to me. It's real to our service members, their families, those who have borne this heavy sacrifice of war."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But.... we've been told that a world run by women will be all peace and butterflies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But.... we've been told that a world run by women will be all peace and butterflies.

 

Nuclear holocaust is a tad bit like cute little butterflies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But.... we've been told that a world run by women will be all peace and butterflies.

 

Regime change is a bit like diaper change: you know more shit is on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The interesting thing for Hillary is that because she's tied her candidacy so closely to Obama's reign, that she is really holding her breath that nothing bad will happen in the next 8 months or so and that obo doesn't fuck something up on the international stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing for Hillary is that because she's tied her candidacy so closely to Obama's reign, that she is really holding her breath that nothing bad will happen in the next 8 months or so and that obo doesn't fuck something up on the international stage.

 

You mean nothing else bad, right? Because the "failed state and terrorist haven" she left in her wake after she convinced Obama to support her neat little "we came, we saw, he died" war IS something bad happening every day.

 

Something to keep in mind as we choose the next Regime Changer in Chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, that was a good catch. She's hoping nothing "more" bad will happen.

 

The problem is the American voters are generally sheep with extremely short attention spans. Libya was a while ago and we don't have any ground troops there, so its a non-issue. Hell, I doubt most could point to Libya on a map if I held a gun to their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the neocons are pissing their goddamned panties! Killery is their only hope.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Follow.

 

To where? What is our national interest?

 

I already explained that.

 

Not effectively. Are we actually for anything or just against Qadaffi?

 

Are those mutually exclusive things?

 

 

5 years later, it seems that being against Moammar was being for following our international coalition partners toward a failed state/terrorist haven.

 

In other words, typical regime change scenario. We usually change to something worse than the problem we decided to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

Someone shoulda fixed us up with some nationbuilding stuff.

 

We didn't actually get the brits out of the way until 1812, 50 years later a civil war and then we relaxed a bit for 50 years when we decided we need to step into a bunch of shit in Europe which was also our introduction to the mideast, Less than 15 years after that we got to play in Korea followed ten years later cleaning up european colonial problems in Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Ideals of the revolution? 1840-50? Was there a watershed event around then that I'm missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Ideals of the revolution? 1840-50? Was there a watershed event around then that I'm missing?

 

 

They had another revolution. 1848 was the beginning of the second republic.

 

This is a fun site.

 

Who'da thought that Afghanistan would massacre another set of europeans.

 

In 1846 we declared war on Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Ideals of the revolution? 1840-50? Was there a watershed event around then that I'm missing?

 

 

Nappy de Thurde's social reforms. Particularly the price ceiling for bread, but establishing arbitration boards for labor disputes. The Revolution was about getting a fair shake for the working man. The chaos led them to make it liberty and order for about 70 years though. IMO it was restored to its real roots by an Emperor and those changes stuck and held through a the next few "revolutions". Fraternity had been reincorporated with liberty and order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That explains the French but I'm more interested in the US.

 

Westward expansion, resolving slave/free states while continuing abolitionist pressure, defeat of mexico, establishment of the US/Canadian border and becoming America from sea to shining sea.

 

Once we had all that shit covered we could have a war to confirm the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Ideals of the revolution? 1840-50? Was there a watershed event around then that I'm missing?
Nappy de Thurde's social reforms. Particularly the price ceiling for bread, but establishing arbitration boards for labor disputes. The Revolution was about getting a fair shake for the working man. The chaos led them to make it liberty and order for about 70 years though. IMO it was restored to its real roots by an Emperor and those changes stuck and held through a the next few "revolutions". Fraternity had been reincorporated with liberty and order.

I'm pretty light on French history and Eastern Conference power rankings. So I'll have to read up some on N3 and Toronto.

 

But it seemed that you were drawing a parallel with US. I'm not disagreeing; I'm just not getting this parallel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

So at some point decades in the future our intervention might serve our interests? Or theirs? Maybe?

 

But meanwhile, Hillary's legacy in Libya is as the NY Times says: a failed state and terrorist haven. That's much mo betta than Moammar, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't seen a pic of dead Moammar in a while. Olsonist? You OK?

 

Show us our great triumph again. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

Ideals of the revolution? 1840-50? Was there a watershed event around then that I'm missing?
Nappy de Thurde's social reforms. Particularly the price ceiling for bread, but establishing arbitration boards for labor disputes. The Revolution was about getting a fair shake for the working man. The chaos led them to make it liberty and order for about 70 years though. IMO it was restored to its real roots by an Emperor and those changes stuck and held through a the next few "revolutions". Fraternity had been reincorporated with liberty and order.

I'm pretty light on French history and Eastern Conference power rankings. So I'll have to read up some on N3 and Toronto.

 

But it seemed that you were drawing a parallel with US. I'm not disagreeing; I'm just not getting this parallel.

 

 

It's not likely that you will find step by step parallels. It is even less likely that you would find a singular event that made the watershed. The most obvious is that it takes some amount of time to establish a functioning government after a revolution and that is a process of evolution of a government that reflects the nature of the society. The pieces need to fit together and that may take a bit of hammering, grinding and polishing to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

So at some point decades in the future our intervention might serve our interests? Or theirs? Maybe?

 

But meanwhile, Hillary's legacy in Libya is as the NY Times says: a failed state and terrorist haven. That's much mo betta than Moammar, huh?

 

 

You have forgotten or were never aware of all the "al-Libi" nom de guerres within AQ and ISIM. "Failed state" is what we label chaos, yet the 2nd Amendment, according to some, is primarily to preserve the ability to create chaos. However some would call the strictly ordered Peoples Democratic Republic of (North) Korea a failed state. Are they wrong? One is in flux and one isn't, one rates an eye en gee and one rates an ee dee, but which?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

So at some point decades in the future our intervention might serve our interests? Or theirs? Maybe?

 

But meanwhile, Hillary's legacy in Libya is as the NY Times says: a failed state and terrorist haven. That's much mo betta than Moammar, huh?

 

 

You have forgotten or were never aware of all the "al-Libi" nom de guerres within AQ and ISIM. "Failed state" is what we label chaos, yet the 2nd Amendment, according to some, is primarily to preserve the ability to create chaos. However some would call the strictly ordered Peoples Democratic Republic of (North) Korea a failed state. Are they wrong? One is in flux and one isn't, one rates an eye en gee and one rates an ee dee, but which?

 

 

I don't know who the "some" are who believe the second amendment is to create chaos, but they're wrong. It's to preserve the ability to provide for our own security should the need arise.

 

As for the "some" who call N Korea a failed state, I'd say they're right, whoever they are.

 

I still don't see how re-regiming Libya has served our interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add that Libya was in a civil war at the time and that the Kenyan didn't Rambo this thing solo. Dunno where BattleCheese is from but I think his country voted for it on the UNSC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

So at some point decades in the future our intervention might serve our interests? Or theirs? Maybe?

 

But meanwhile, Hillary's legacy in Libya is as the NY Times says: a failed state and terrorist haven. That's much mo betta than Moammar, huh?

 

 

You have forgotten or were never aware of all the "al-Libi" nom de guerres within AQ and ISIM. "Failed state" is what we label chaos, yet the 2nd Amendment, according to some, is primarily to preserve the ability to create chaos. However some would call the strictly ordered Peoples Democratic Republic of (North) Korea a failed state. Are they wrong? One is in flux and one isn't, one rates an eye en gee and one rates an ee dee, but which?

 

 

I don't know who the "some" are who believe the second amendment is to create chaos, but they're wrong. It's to preserve the ability to provide for our own security should the need arise.

 

As for the "some" who call N Korea a failed state, I'd say they're right, whoever they are.

 

I still don't see how re-regiming Libya has served our interests.

 

 

We didn't re-regime it. Bitch slapping a wife beater into a dirt nap doesn't make one responsible for who she hooks up from then on. What served our national interests was maintaining our standing with our allies in the ME and the EU and our moral standing as someone who will knock the snot out of bullies every now and again. The merits of these things are debatable, certainly, but they are undeniably national interests in the eyes of the majority still. That is the reason we did it. We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely if you care enough to bitch slap the wife beater into the ground you should care about who she goes out with next. You are standing up and telling the wife that you will deal with what you consider her problem but then don't give a toss what happens. Sounds more like an egotistical bully than someone who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely if you care enough to bitch slap the wife beater into the ground you should care about who she goes out with next. You are standing up and telling the wife that you will deal with what you consider her problem but then don't give a toss what happens. Sounds more like an egotistical bully than someone who cares.

 

He's not a bully, these two hypocrites are partisan dupes and armchair ass-clowns with no balls hiding behind their nanny's apron... The best thing you can do is ignore these two twats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think Libya was more a case of Bill whispering to Hillary "Remember what happened when I did nothing in Rwanda, don't make that same mistake".

 

And I agree with Mark about the need to occasionally bitch slap some people when they deserve it and also helping out our allies. However, I disagree that it is in our interests to go in and create a vacuum and then walk away hoping for the best. I sorta like Powell's "Pottery Barn" doctrine. I think if we are going to go in and wreck a country and effect regime change by killing the current MFWIC - we should probably have a plan for what comes next. If we are not willing to deal with what comes next - then we probably shouldn't be chucking out said MFWIC. There is "bitch slapping" to get their attention and then there is BITCH SLAPPING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell does everybody seem to feel the need to slap Killery? I just don't get it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely if you care enough to bitch slap the wife beater into the ground you should care about who she goes out with next. You are standing up and telling the wife that you will deal with what you consider her problem but then don't give a toss what happens. Sounds more like an egotistical bully than someone who cares.

 

No I don't. Not to the point of regretting defending her from one instance of abuse, anyway. If defending a woman being abused makes me a bully in your eyes then I welcome your disapproval. And don't call me Shirley....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Took 70 years for the French to realize the ideals of their revolution. Took the US about the same amount of time, give or take a year or two. Messy things.

 

So at some point decades in the future our intervention might serve our interests? Or theirs? Maybe?

 

But meanwhile, Hillary's legacy in Libya is as the NY Times says: a failed state and terrorist haven. That's much mo betta than Moammar, huh?

 

 

You have forgotten or were never aware of all the "al-Libi" nom de guerres within AQ and ISIM. "Failed state" is what we label chaos, yet the 2nd Amendment, according to some, is primarily to preserve the ability to create chaos. However some would call the strictly ordered Peoples Democratic Republic of (North) Korea a failed state. Are they wrong? One is in flux and one isn't, one rates an eye en gee and one rates an ee dee, but which?

 

 

I don't know who the "some" are who believe the second amendment is to create chaos, but they're wrong. It's to preserve the ability to provide for our own security should the need arise.

 

As for the "some" who call N Korea a failed state, I'd say they're right, whoever they are.

 

I still don't see how re-regiming Libya has served our interests.

 

 

We didn't re-regime it. Bitch slapping a wife beater into a dirt nap doesn't make one responsible for who she hooks up from then on. What served our national interests was maintaining our standing with our allies in the ME and the EU and our moral standing as someone who will knock the snot out of bullies every now and again. The merits of these things are debatable, certainly, but they are undeniably national interests in the eyes of the majority still. That is the reason we did it. We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

The re-regiming couldn't happen without us. Way back upthread, we were informed that only the US had the resources to properly help. It prompted me to say that's why standing armies are bad.

 

Since we were a decisive factor, we bear some responsibility for the outcome. And the outcome is a failed state and terrorist haven.

 

I think we should cut our defense spending waaay back so that we no longer have the "standing" to be the world's policeman simply because we lack that capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell does everybody seem to feel the need to slap Killery? I just don't get it..

 

The court of public opinion only allows reasonable doubt for a limited time. Once past its sell by date it is replaced by 'Cui bono?' and if the answer contains your name acceptance of circumstantial evidence is permitted..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You have forgotten or were never aware of all the "al-Libi" nom de guerres within AQ and ISIM. "Failed state" is what we label chaos, yet the 2nd Amendment, according to some, is primarily to preserve the ability to create chaos. However some would call the strictly ordered Peoples Democratic Republic of (North) Korea a failed state. Are they wrong? One is in flux and one isn't, one rates an eye en gee and one rates an ee dee, but which?

I don't know who the "some" are who believe the second amendment is to create chaos, but they're wrong. It's to preserve the ability to provide for our own security should the need arise.

 

As for the "some" who call N Korea a failed state, I'd say they're right, whoever they are.

 

I still don't see how re-regiming Libya has served our interests.

 

We didn't re-regime it. Bitch slapping a wife beater into a dirt nap doesn't make one responsible for who she hooks up from then on. What served our national interests was maintaining our standing with our allies in the ME and the EU and our moral standing as someone who will knock the snot out of bullies every now and again. The merits of these things are debatable, certainly, but they are undeniably national interests in the eyes of the majority still. That is the reason we did it. We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

The re-regiming couldn't happen without us. Way back upthread, we were informed that only the US had the resources to properly help. It prompted me to say that's why standing armies are bad.

 

Since we were a decisive factor, we bear some responsibility for the outcome. And the outcome is a failed state and terrorist haven.

 

I think we should cut our defense spending waaay back so that we no longer have the "standing" to be the world's policeman simply because we lack that capability.

 

That it could not have happened without us is the product of the notion that the US is all-powerful, which it is not. Revolutions happened both before and after the founding of America, United States of, which itself is the product of a violent revolution. The outcome of the beasts can not be accurately predicted.

 

Again, Libya was producing lots of terrorists under Gadaffi.

 

Disarming ourselves is not in the cards, but the idea is not without merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think disarming ourselves completely would be very foolish but cutting our "defense" budget by about half would make it harder for our Regime Changers In Chief to just choose to get into another war that makes things no better.

 

We went from a nation that produced terrorists to a terrorist haven. I don't see the big upgrade or why we had to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't disagree with you Tom. Not completely anyway. But NEVER ever underestimate the ability for the military to be forced to "do more with less". You'd be surprised at the amount of regime changiness we can do on half the budget we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could probably manage a half dozen or more simultaneous humanitarian interventions with half the bucks, if properly budgeted, of the (Two) Third(s) World Shithole variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Ahem. The original foia has now been deleted, but fortunately copies are everywhere. From March 27 2011.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops are training the rebels inside of western Egypt, and to a limited degree in the western suburbs of Benghazi.

You cannot be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, we'll probably have to eliminate 3/4 of the budget. Whatever it takes to turn it back into a "defense" budget and stop the world policeman act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Ahem. The original foia has now been deleted, but fortunately copies are everywhere. From March 27 2011.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops are training the rebels inside of western Egypt, and to a limited degree in the western suburbs of Benghazi.

You cannot be serious.

 

 

 

fo·ment

ˌfōˈment,ˈfōˌment/
verb
  1. 1.
    instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).
    "they accused him of fomenting political unrest"
    synonyms: instigate, incite, provoke, agitate, excite, stir up, whip up, encourage,urge, fan the flames of
    "they were accused of fomenting civil unrest"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, we'll probably have to eliminate 3/4 of the budget. Whatever it takes to turn it back into a "defense" budget and stop the world policeman act.

 

But what if the people who are running for office who hold that opinion are all gun grabbers, a few stray Paulianian gadflies aside?

 

Single issue voters rule most of the time in our current system of voluntary, optional voting and low participation. Very few real Americans who believe in the second amendment support big military cuts. Just the opposite for all the contenders for POTUS the Party of Americans want to increase military spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, we'll probably have to eliminate 3/4 of the budget. Whatever it takes to turn it back into a "defense" budget and stop the world policeman act.

 

But what if the people who are running for office who hold that opinion are gun grabbers?

 

 

Gary Johnson isn't a gun grabber. Not sure who you're talking about but he's the only one really talking about cutting spending instead of just taking nibbles out of the growth rate like the Duopoly candidates say they'll do (then don't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Ahem. The original foia has now been deleted, but fortunately copies are everywhere. From March 27 2011.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops are training the rebels inside of western Egypt, and to a limited degree in the western suburbs of Benghazi.

You cannot be serious.

 

 

fo·ment[/size]

 

ˌfōˈment,ˈfōˌment/

 

verb

  •  

    1.

     

     

    instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).

    "they accused him of fomenting political unrest"

    synonyms: instigate, incite, provoke, agitate, excite, stir up, whip up, encourage,urge, fan the flames of

     

     

    "they were accused of fomenting civil unrest"

     

     

     

     

     

     

You know just as well as I do that the email dated 27 march was not talking about things which only started on 26 march.

I expect the heat was turned up in Libya the day after it was clear that the Egyptian situation was out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another gadfly with less than 1% support.

 

He's running for office, wants to cut spending, and wants to stop the world policeman bit.

 

I can't help it if those ideas are not popular. I don't seek the comfort of the herd and don't care if ideas I like are popular or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We did not foment the civil war in Libya like we did in the Ukraine so I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Ahem. The original foia has now been deleted, but fortunately copies are everywhere. From March 27 2011.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops are training the rebels inside of western Egypt, and to a limited degree in the western suburbs of Benghazi.

You cannot be serious.

 

 

fo·ment[/size]

 

ˌfōˈment,ˈfōˌment/

 

verb

  •  

    1.

     

     

    instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).

    "they accused him of fomenting political unrest"

    synonyms: instigate, incite, provoke, agitate, excite, stir up, whip up, encourage,urge, fan the flames of

     

     

    "they were accused of fomenting civil unrest"

     

     

     

     

     

You know just as well as I do that the email dated 27 march was not talking about things which only started on 26 march.

I expect the heat was turned up in Libya the day after it was clear that the Egyptian situation was out of control.

 

 

No, I don't. To me it's a sitrep, not a report on us trying to start the thing. In the Ukraine we actively encouraged another color revolution to start, which isn't what we did in Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

You know just as well as I do that the email dated 27 march was not talking about things which only started on 26 march.

I expect the heat was turned up in Libya the day after it was clear that the Egyptian situation was out of control.

 

 

No, I don't. To me it's a sitrep, not a report on us trying to start the thing. In the Ukraine we actively encouraged another color revolution to start, which isn't what we did in Libya.

 

 

JFC. Yep, I read that 2x and especially the highlighted stuff. Total SITREP. Nothing in there whatsoever about "instigation". Nothing.

 

Now if Batcheese can dig up some of the secret memos that came out of DFG, where Qhaddaffi is being held right now - he'd be onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the Libyan civil war that we decided to police a completely home-grown situation or did foreigners instigate and support rebels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say. I think it more likely than not somebody somewhere was looking for a chance to get him deposed. He made a lot of enemies in his long history of instigating regime change throughout MENA and Africa. Unlikely it was the US though.

 

As Dick the Deciderer In Chief (whose bust, btw, was enshrined in the halls of Congress this year, in a touching ceremony, the only vice President ever so honored, doubtless to compensate for the the gross injustice of the 'vice' misnomer in his job description) was fond of saying:

 

"Nine one one changed everything."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't. To me it's a sitrep, not a report on us trying to start the thing. In the Ukraine we actively encouraged another color revolution to start, which isn't what we did in Libya.

Of course it's a sitrep. Blumenthal is telling Hillary that everyone is balls-deep in Libya and has been for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to instigate anything, just provide some arms and tell them you'll provide air support.

 

Kinda like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is all hell a racket.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to instigate anything, just provide some arms and tell them you'll provide air support.

 

Kinda like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.

 

Imagine if we had done that. Just imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

War is all hell a racket.

 

FIFY

 

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive things, Fuk Tup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

I still don't see how re-regiming Libya has served our interests.

 

 

We didn't re-regime it.

 

 

That's The Big Lie About Libya

 

The initial "justification" for our involvement was to protect civilians but the mission creeped and regime change became the goal.

 

...In late March 2011, Clinton quotes herself telling NATO members, “It’s crucial we’re all on the same page on NATO’s responsibility to enforce the no-fly zone and protect civilians in Libya.”

 

Just two paragraphs later — now 15 pages into her memoir’s Libya section — Clinton writes: “[by] late summer 2011, the rebels had pushed back the regime’s forces. They captured Tripoli toward the end of August, and Qaddafi and his family fled into the desert.” There is an abrupt and unexplained seven-month gap, during which the military mission has inexplicably, and massively, expanded beyond protecting civilians to regime change — seemingly by happenstance...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

Nor is laughing about it..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, Olson the armchair ass-clown is back with his dead Gaddafi picture collection...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

If the NY Times is right that Libya is currently a failed state and terrorism haven, I'd expect people are being slaughtered.

 

We're standing by.

 

I'm going sailing today if some wind comes along. It seems pretty easy.

 

Does it seem hard to you at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

If the NY Times is right that Libya is currently a failed state and terrorism haven, I'd expect people are being slaughtered.

 

We're standing by.

 

I'm going sailing today if some wind comes along. It seems pretty easy.

 

Does it seem hard to you at the moment?

 

 

I may have been wrong. Well, for some folks it can be, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

If the NY Times is right that Libya is currently a failed state and terrorism haven, I'd expect people are being slaughtered.

 

We're standing by.

 

I'm going sailing today if some wind comes along. It seems pretty easy.

 

Does it seem hard to you at the moment?

 

 

I may have been wrong. Well, for some folks it can be, anyway.

 

 

Are you one of those folks?

 

Which people around the world currently need our protection from their governments?

 

I still don't think protecting others from their own government is our job, I don't think we're good at it, and I think we generally do more harm than good when we try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't think protecting others from their own government is our job

I'm glad you finally want to ditch the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

If the NY Times is right that Libya is currently a failed state and terrorism haven, I'd expect people are being slaughtered.

 

We're standing by.

 

I'm going sailing today if some wind comes along. It seems pretty easy.

 

Does it seem hard to you at the moment?

 

 

I may have been wrong. Well, for some folks it can be, anyway.

 

 

Are you one of those folks?

 

Which people around the world currently need our protection from their governments?

 

I still don't think protecting others from their own government is our job, I don't think we're good at it, and I think we generally do more harm than good when we try.

 

 

I am one of those folks.

 

Your question of need and governments is both too broad and too specific. It reflects the deliberate obtuseness of ideology. The world, and life, are wonderfully and tragically un-binary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still don't think protecting others from their own government is our job

I'm glad you finally want to ditch the Second Amendment.

 

 

Your inability to differentiate between our government and other governments makes your likely vote for another interventionist make some sense, but I see a difference between our government and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

True, but standing and watching people being slaughtered is not as easy as you think.

 

If the NY Times is right that Libya is currently a failed state and terrorism haven, I'd expect people are being slaughtered.

 

We're standing by.

 

I'm going sailing today if some wind comes along. It seems pretty easy.

 

Does it seem hard to you at the moment?

 

 

I may have been wrong. Well, for some folks it can be, anyway.

 

 

Are you one of those folks?

 

Which people around the world currently need our protection from their governments?

 

I still don't think protecting others from their own government is our job, I don't think we're good at it, and I think we generally do more harm than good when we try.

 

 

I am one of those folks.

 

Your question of need and governments is both too broad and too specific. It reflects the deliberate obtuseness of ideology. The world, and life, are wonderfully and tragically un-binary.

 

 

I disagree, obviously, and think the answer to my question is none.

 

Maybe a more practical question is in order: when have we done more good than harm by attempting to protect people from their own government?