Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

When somebody yells 'charge' it's good to have an idea of which direction.

 

Mastercard, Visa, or American Empire?

None of the above - Chinacard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, they know what they want. McCain may be implusive as hell, but he is one of the few Senators that does his homework on this stuff.

 

Fact is, Bush and Cheney were essentially right in the conclusion that the underlying political landscape of the ME and North Africa contributes greatly to violent political Jihadism against the west in that world. The major mistake they made was in thinking that it could be solved by means of military occupation.

 

Libya presented a possible once in a lifetime opportunity for the people who believe it is in our national interest to have a hand in the region, and knew that Qadhafi was a crazy evil son of a bitch. The people will fight to the death. They know what happened to the prisoners in Abu-Salim in 96. The 97% of the whole nation is right on the coast, where our navy likes it to be.

France and Britian promised to do the clean up, and everybody from the Danish to Al Qaeda itself is on board.

 

Had we moused out, the word would be on the street that America doesn't give a shit if Arabs are slaughtered. That might be true, but at least this keeps em' guessing.

 

Some people believe that the people, after being saved from the brink of destruction, are going to be easily turned against the people that saved them. McCain knows that's bullshit. Everybody with half a brain knows that Qadhafi will go right back to his old ways of seeking to get revenge. Bomb airplanes, try to assassinate people, you name it. Gonna start whining that we don't know who the rebels are? That if they win then they might be terrorists?

Ferkrisake, we've had a hand in the region for years. Mubarak was Sadats successor and maintained the Carter peace treaty with Israel. We flew out of Wheeler AFB from WWII until Qadaffi took over in 1970.

 

If you want to be in a war to get rid of Qadaffi and allow the rebels to name their leader then go in, get rid of Qadaffi and get out. No nation building. Break shit, kill people and go. But, farting around with doing some bombing, going away for a while and then coming back to bomb a little more while pretending to have some sort of policy isn't much of an approach.

 

The cries of paper tiger and video game warriors is going to ring more and more true in the propaganda machine. Meanwhile, while concentrating on one country, Syria and Yemen jerk around, Egypt is unresolved, Iran schemes and Pan-Islam lurks in the background.

 

Do we have a mideast/North Africa policy? Shouldn't our 'leaders' have some consensus on this or is it just something else for partisans to bat around?

 

Now that we have taken up arms against him, I'm absolutely certain that Qadaffi will return to his old ways. So, our government should say it, acknowledge that this is a likely result of our actions and therefore, we will take him out. That die was cast with the first US bomb. Then, go do it and leave. Right now, all we are doing is participating in the prolonged destruction of the country.

 

What's wrong with having France and Britain and the others take the lead and be responsible for not embarrassing themselves by letting Qadhafi off the hook? This thing might need some troops in there, before all is said and done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

What's the mission?

 

Follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferkrisake, we've had a hand in the region for years. Mubarak was Sadats successor and maintained the Carter peace treaty with Israel. We flew out of Wheeler AFB from WWII until Qadaffi took over in 1970.

 

If you want to be in a war to get rid of Qadaffi and allow the rebels to name their leader then go in, get rid of Qadaffi and get out. No nation building. Break shit, kill people and go. But, farting around with doing some bombing, going away for a while and then coming back to bomb a little more while pretending to have some sort of policy isn't much of an approach.

 

The cries of paper tiger and video game warriors is going to ring more and more true in the propaganda machine. Meanwhile, while concentrating on one country, Syria and Yemen jerk around, Egypt is unresolved, Iran schemes and Pan-Islam lurks in the background.

 

Do we have a mideast/North Africa policy? Shouldn't our 'leaders' have some consensus on this or is it just something else for partisans to bat around?

 

Now that we have taken up arms against him, I'm absolutely certain that Qadaffi will return to his old ways. So, our government should say it, acknowledge that this is a likely result of our actions and therefore, we will take him out. That die was cast with the first US bomb. Then, go do it and leave. Right now, all we are doing is participating in the prolonged destruction of the country.

 

What's wrong with having France and Britain and the others take the lead and be responsible for not embarrassing themselves by letting Qadhafi off the hook? This thing might need some troops in there, before all is said and done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

What's the mission?

 

Follow.

To where? What is our national interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferkrisake, we've had a hand in the region for years. Mubarak was Sadats successor and maintained the Carter peace treaty with Israel. We flew out of Wheeler AFB from WWII until Qadaffi took over in 1970.

 

If you want to be in a war to get rid of Qadaffi and allow the rebels to name their leader then go in, get rid of Qadaffi and get out. No nation building. Break shit, kill people and go. But, farting around with doing some bombing, going away for a while and then coming back to bomb a little more while pretending to have some sort of policy isn't much of an approach.

 

The cries of paper tiger and video game warriors is going to ring more and more true in the propaganda machine. Meanwhile, while concentrating on one country, Syria and Yemen jerk around, Egypt is unresolved, Iran schemes and Pan-Islam lurks in the background.

 

Do we have a mideast/North Africa policy? Shouldn't our 'leaders' have some consensus on this or is it just something else for partisans to bat around?

 

Now that we have taken up arms against him, I'm absolutely certain that Qadaffi will return to his old ways. So, our government should say it, acknowledge that this is a likely result of our actions and therefore, we will take him out. That die was cast with the first US bomb. Then, go do it and leave. Right now, all we are doing is participating in the prolonged destruction of the country.

 

What's wrong with having France and Britain and the others take the lead and be responsible for not embarrassing themselves by letting Qadhafi off the hook? This thing might need some troops in there, before all is said and done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

What's the mission?

 

Follow.

To where? What is our national interest?

 

I already explained that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

What's the mission?

 

Follow.

To where? What is our national interest?

 

I already explained that.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

What's the mission?

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Are those mutually exclusive things?

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Are those mutually exclusive things?

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

 

I said it would take at least a month for them to shake the Keystone Kops bit, actually. Here's another take on how it works on the ol' Jihadist thingy.

 

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/03/26/have-the-jihadis-lost-the-moral-high-ground-to-the-rebels/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Are those mutually exclusive things?

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

 

I said it would take at least a month for them to shake the Keystone Kops bit, actually. Here's another take on how it works on the ol' Jihadist thingy.

 

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/03/26/have-the-jihadis-lost-the-moral-high-ground-to-the-rebels/

Ohhh, that just rings sooooo true. And, they do blog entries on Oprah too. I can see why you use it as a source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Are those mutually exclusive things?

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

 

I said it would take at least a month for them to shake the Keystone Kops bit, actually. Here's another take on how it works on the ol' Jihadist thingy.

 

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/03/26/have-the-jihadis-lost-the-moral-high-ground-to-the-rebels/

Ohhh, that just rings sooooo true. And, they do blog entries on Oprah too. I can see why you use it as a source.

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

 

I said it would take at least a month for them to shake the Keystone Kops bit, actually. Here's another take on how it works on the ol' Jihadist thingy.

 

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/03/26/have-the-jihadis-lost-the-moral-high-ground-to-the-rebels/

Ohhh, that just rings sooooo true. And, they do blog entries on Oprah too. I can see why you use it as a source.

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Seems to be a multi author blog with most articles being an apologia for islam. They just slip Oprah in to remain topical. It's just an amusing juxtaposition of topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, but without the former, there is no point.

 

As to the latter, you've been predicting how easy this was going to be for the last couple of months. I'm sure your dreams will come true eventually. Kinda like waiting for christmas though.

 

I said it would take at least a month for them to shake the Keystone Kops bit, actually. Here's another take on how it works on the ol' Jihadist thingy.

 

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/03/26/have-the-jihadis-lost-the-moral-high-ground-to-the-rebels/

Ohhh, that just rings sooooo true. And, they do blog entries on Oprah too. I can see why you use it as a source.

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Seems to be a multi author blog with most articles being an apologia for islam. They just slip Oprah in to remain topical. It's just an amusing juxtaposition of topics.

 

Ill see if I can find it on a site that doesn't mention Oprah for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Seems to be a multi author blog with most articles being an apologia for islam. They just slip Oprah in to remain topical. It's just an amusing juxtaposition of topics.

 

Ill see if I can find it on a site that doesn't mention Oprah for you.

Find one that deals in facts. Poo-pooing islamic radicalism and believing it is going away soon doesn't seem to mesh with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Seems to be a multi author blog with most articles being an apologia for islam. They just slip Oprah in to remain topical. It's just an amusing juxtaposition of topics.

 

Ill see if I can find it on a site that doesn't mention Oprah for you.

Find one that deals in facts. Poo-pooing islamic radicalism and believing it is going away soon doesn't seem to mesh with reality.

 

Can you list some of the facts for me so that I will be able to tell what would be acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, gentlemen... there is no fighting in here. This is the WAR ROOM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, gentlemen... there is no fighting in here. This is the WAR ROOM!

 

Speaking of which, notice how when the drones showed up suddenly Misrata was all in rebel hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, gentlemen... there is no fighting in here. This is the WAR ROOM!

 

Speaking of which, notice how when the drones showed up suddenly Misrata was all in rebel hands?

 

I had not heard that. The news reports this am on CNN made it appear there was consideable fighting still going on in the city.

 

Edit: It still irks me that the word "drone" has become the norm in the lexicon of referring to Remotely Pilot Aircraft. There is nothing "drone-like" about it. Its simply a word the media latched onto and its stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where has the author of that written anything about Oprah? I guess that any source that mentions Oprah now becomes a source that must be ignored on all topics from all authors.

 

Ah well, at least it's clear why you are unable to grasp this subject.

Seems to be a multi author blog with most articles being an apologia for islam. They just slip Oprah in to remain topical. It's just an amusing juxtaposition of topics.

 

Ill see if I can find it on a site that doesn't mention Oprah for you.

Find one that deals in facts. Poo-pooing islamic radicalism and believing it is going away soon doesn't seem to mesh with reality.

 

Can you list some of the facts for me so that I will be able to tell what would be acceptable?

It's pretty hard to find facts when the guy 'leading' says this isn't about regime change but Qadaffi has to go. Even harder when they seem to believe that a couple of weeks of humanitarian bombing will oust a dictator who has been entrenched for 40 years.

 

You want a fact, OK, Qadaffi is still there despite your early cheerleading for the opposition, there are boots on the ground despite your claims (later modified) that they wouldn't be necessary and we are getting friendly fire kills from NATO.

 

Even if, by chance, Qadaffi actually died in a bomb attack, there appears to be no thinking to what lies ahead. Actually, it would confirm my first vote in the February poll saying that Qadaffi would die in office.

 

Do you think that seeing NATO supporting the Libyan rebels is lost on those in the other arab countries like Yemen, Syria, bahrain and others won't wonder why they can't get the same kind of support?

 

This is being played out over a much bigger field than Libya. Egypt looks like a success but, it's still a military dictatorship. Let's see what happens there after the elections.

 

If we pull out of Afghanistan on schedule, you can bet the Taliban will be there proclaiming how they beat both the russians and the americans.

 

But, keep your blinders on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, gentlemen... there is no fighting in here. This is the WAR ROOM!

 

Speaking of which, notice how when the drones showed up suddenly Misrata was all in rebel hands?

Didn't notice that. Last report from CNN about half an hour ago says the fighting is still going on but the city center is quiet. Latest report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, gentlemen... there is no fighting in here. This is the WAR ROOM!

 

Speaking of which, notice how when the drones showed up suddenly Misrata was all in rebel hands?

 

I had not heard that. The news reports this am on CNN made it appear there was consideable fighting still going on in the city.

 

Edit: It still irks me that the word "drone" has become the norm in the lexicon of referring to Remotely Pilot Aircraft. There is nothing "drone-like" about it. Its simply a word the media latched onto and its stuck.

 

From 35 minutes ago: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/26/libya.war/

 

The fighting is now in the 'burbs, they abandoned that boulevard that bisected the city itself. Still getting shelled around the port, of course, but this means they are not on the ragged edge of being overwhelmed anymore.

 

OK, RPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to find facts when the guy 'leading' says this isn't about regime change but Qadaffi has to go. Even harder when they seem to believe that a couple of weeks of humanitarian bombing will oust a dictator who has been entrenched for 40 years.

 

 

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. But didn't we essentially drive out Serb forces from Kosovo and eventually oust Milosevic from power through the exclusive use of air power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to find facts when the guy 'leading' says this isn't about regime change but Qadaffi has to go. Even harder when they seem to believe that a couple of weeks of humanitarian bombing will oust a dictator who has been entrenched for 40 years.

 

 

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. But didn't we essentially drive out Serb forces from Kosovo and eventually oust Milosevic from power through the exclusive use of air power?

Unless you support your questions with facts, you are destined to fail....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to find facts when the guy 'leading' says this isn't about regime change but Qadaffi has to go. Even harder when they seem to believe that a couple of weeks of humanitarian bombing will oust a dictator who has been entrenched for 40 years.

 

 

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. But didn't we essentially drive out Serb forces from Kosovo and eventually oust Milosevic from power through the exclusive use of air power?

Not in the USAFs wildest dreams. But, since that's about all the US contributed we would like to think so.

 

Try this from the Independent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to find facts when the guy 'leading' says this isn't about regime change but Qadaffi has to go. Even harder when they seem to believe that a couple of weeks of humanitarian bombing will oust a dictator who has been entrenched for 40 years.

 

 

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. But didn't we essentially drive out Serb forces from Kosovo and eventually oust Milosevic from power through the exclusive use of air power?

Unless you support your questions with facts, you are destined to fail....

Support questions with facts? Shouldn't that be answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Support questions with facts? Shouldn't that be answers?

That depends on who is asking the questions. I usually ask questions and end up having facts requested. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true, you cut and paste a lot too.

 

Your technique is obviously to just post a lot to stir shit while making sure you don't actually state a position on anything that might indicate that you actually thought about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true, you cut and paste a lot too.

 

Your technique is obviously to just post a lot to stir shit while making sure you don't actually state a position on anything that might indicate that you actually thought about it.

Brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point. they don't want us there. It doesn't matter who we help now, in 5-10 years they will turn back on each other in an ethnic/tribal cleansing policy. This is what happens and has happened for a very long time, we cannot keep pushing our views of what is right or wrong on people that at times have a very different mindset.

 

Flame away

You sound a bit like the guy who said this: "I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

 

I agree with both of you.

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point. they don't want us there. It doesn't matter who we help now, in 5-10 years they will turn back on each other in an ethnic/tribal cleansing policy. This is what happens and has happened for a very long time, we cannot keep pushing our views of what is right or wrong on people that at times have a very different mindset.

 

Flame away

You sound a bit like the guy who said this: "I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

 

I agree with both of you.

Bump

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point. they don't want us there. It doesn't matter who we help now, in 5-10 years they will turn back on each other in an ethnic/tribal cleansing policy. This is what happens and has happened for a very long time, we cannot keep pushing our views of what is right or wrong on people that at times have a very different mindset.

 

Flame away

You sound a bit like the guy who said this: "I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

 

I agree with both of you.

Bump

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

I certainly have not seen anything to make me rethink my opposition to the whole thing. Quite the opposite. We could have found some other way for Raytheon to make a couple hundred million bucks than by rotating their Tomahawk stock on Libya.

 

I was just bumping this up for the benefit of the baboon squad that likes to argue against straw man positions on things, as was done in some other thread discussing Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oopsie

 

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/as-obama-ignores-latin-america-foes-rush-in/

 

As Obama Ignores Latin America, Foes Rush In

 

 

For starters, according to Santos, President Obama assured him that the extradition destination was not a significant concern for the United States. (National Security Council official Dan Restrepo insists that Obama expressed a clear interest in the matter.) Regardless of what exactly the two presidents discussed, Santos recognizes that Obama has treated Latin America as an afterthought. “While the rest of the world, while Europe and Asia, are strengthening their ties to our region, the U.S. is passive, is disengaged,” Santos said in a speech at Brown University last month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point. they don't want us there. It doesn't matter who we help now, in 5-10 years they will turn back on each other in an ethnic/tribal cleansing policy. This is what happens and has happened for a very long time, we cannot keep pushing our views of what is right or wrong on people that at times have a very different mindset.

 

Flame away

You sound a bit like the guy who said this: "I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

 

I agree with both of you.

Bump

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

I certainly have not seen anything to make me rethink my opposition to the whole thing. Quite the opposite. We could have found some other way for Raytheon to make a couple hundred million bucks than by rotating their Tomahawk stock on Libya.

 

I was just bumping this up for the benefit of the baboon squad that likes to argue against straw man positions on things, as was done in some other thread discussing Libya.

 

I'm pretty confident Qadhafi is going to be deposed, but what comes after that is definitely an open question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

I certainly have not seen anything to make me rethink my opposition to the whole thing. Quite the opposite. We could have found some other way for Raytheon to make a couple hundred million bucks than by rotating their Tomahawk stock on Libya.

 

I was just bumping this up for the benefit of the baboon squad that likes to argue against straw man positions on things, as was done in some other thread discussing Libya.

 

I'm pretty confident Qadhafi is going to be deposed, but what comes after that is definitely an open question.

I'm guessing it will be settled out of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

I certainly have not seen anything to make me rethink my opposition to the whole thing. Quite the opposite. We could have found some other way for Raytheon to make a couple hundred million bucks than by rotating their Tomahawk stock on Libya.

 

I was just bumping this up for the benefit of the baboon squad that likes to argue against straw man positions on things, as was done in some other thread discussing Libya.

 

I'm pretty confident Qadhafi is going to be deposed, but what comes after that is definitely an open question.

I'm guessing it will be settled out of court.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deposed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well it sure as shit ain't enforcing a 'no fly zone' any more, its just something to hide behind.

 

Maybe Nato should have borrowed Seal team 6 for a week and all this shit would be over.

I certainly have not seen anything to make me rethink my opposition to the whole thing. Quite the opposite. We could have found some other way for Raytheon to make a couple hundred million bucks than by rotating their Tomahawk stock on Libya.

 

I was just bumping this up for the benefit of the baboon squad that likes to argue against straw man positions on things, as was done in some other thread discussing Libya.

 

I'm pretty confident Qadhafi is going to be deposed, but what comes after that is definitely an open question.

I'm guessing it will be settled out of court.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deposed

I am fully aware of all three meanings and all apply in one form or another. It was intended as humor and I didn't even have to mispell anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end game approaches.

 

 

They are on the cusp of cutting off the north road to the west of Tripoli, and in combination with control of the south and east roads, it becomes a siege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linky

 

In a three-minute statement to the media on Saturday after the first cruise missiles were launched, Mr. Obama six times noted international support for the use of force, saying the attack on Libya was an "international effort" and that the U.S. was acting with a "broad coalition" that included European and Arab partners. Mr. Obama and his aides also said he and top advisers had consulted with bipartisan leaders in Congress.

 

Oh goody. Glad he got Congressional approval and all. :rolleyes:

 

Now I can hold Congress accountable! But I'll need to know a bit more. Who were these leaders? What did they say? What did my particular representative tell them to say?

 

I want to punish him with my vote on this matter, and knowing the answers to those questions is as close as I can come to knowing how he might have voted had Congress had anything to do with this war.

 

Accountability and a balance of powers would have been nice, but can I at least get answers to those questions instead?

 

Still wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linky

 

In a three-minute statement to the media on Saturday after the first cruise missiles were launched, Mr. Obama six times noted international support for the use of force, saying the attack on Libya was an "international effort" and that the U.S. was acting with a "broad coalition" that included European and Arab partners. Mr. Obama and his aides also said he and top advisers had consulted with bipartisan leaders in Congress.

 

Oh goody. Glad he got Congressional approval and all. :rolleyes:

 

Now I can hold Congress accountable! But I'll need to know a bit more. Who were these leaders? What did they say? What did my particular representative tell them to say?

 

I want to punish him with my vote on this matter, and knowing the answers to those questions is as close as I can come to knowing how he might have voted had Congress had anything to do with this war.

 

Accountability and a balance of powers would have been nice, but can I at least get answers to those questions instead?

 

Still wondering...

 

I avoid PA, just like I keep my head out of the toilet bowl.

But what a good thread. Good facts, and well-framed opposing arguments.

 

Mark K, your contributions are occupying much of my thought space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send in the Simple Jack La-Z-Boy Warrior Division ®. Improve two countries with one invasion. Libya could use a laugh.

 

Problem(s) SOLved.

 

I still think this was the better play. Damn you, Barry Obummer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I avoid PA, just like I keep my head out of the toilet bowl.

But what a good thread. Good facts, and well-framed opposing arguments.

 

Mark K, your contributions are occupying much of my thought space.

Well, the verdict is in: Sol et al. were right. Everyone else is a dickhead.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249545-the-libya-fiasco-and-the-folly-of-intervention

I sincerely hope that we may finally have learned something in the aftermath of the tragedy in Libya. I hope it might finally serve as a wake-up call that our interventionist foreign policy is causing us real harm. It is bankrupting our economy and it is turning the rest of the world against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I avoid PA, just like I keep my head out of the toilet bowl.

But what a good thread. Good facts, and well-framed opposing arguments.

 

Mark K, your contributions are occupying much of my thought space.

Well, the verdict is in: Sol et al. were right. Everyone else is a dickhead.

 

http://thehill.com/b...of-intervention

I sincerely hope that we may finally have learned something in the aftermath of the tragedy in Libya. I hope it might finally serve as a wake-up call that our interventionist foreign policy is causing us real harm. It is bankrupting our economy and it is turning the rest of the world against us.

People are not dickheads just for having a different opinion. I just think that we need to stop doing this stuff. It costs us too much. That said, this could be the "worst case scenario" that tests the limit of my beliefs in this respect. I still struggle with what was right/wrong wrt Libya. A whole city was about to get slaughtered, and would have, had we not taken action. There is no black/white line for us to follow, to discern whether something is in our interests. Different people are going to see it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still struggle with what was right/wrong wrt Libya. A whole city was about to get slaughtered, and would have, had we not taken action.

Yes.... this stuff is called propaganda. It is used to justify wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are not dickheads just for having a different opinion. I just think that we need to stop doing this stuff. It costs us too much. That said, this could be the "worst case scenario" that tests the limit of my beliefs in this respect. I still struggle with what was right/wrong wrt Libya. A whole city was about to get slaughtered, and would have, had we not taken action. There is no black/white line for us to follow, to discern whether something is in our interests. Different people are going to see it differently.

 

Sol, not trying to argue or anything and I hold similar feelings abotu when its right or not to intervene. However, I would ask where are your personal limits on the Syrian thing? I think far more people have ALREADY been slaughtered than were ever going to be in Libya. And its still happening on a daily basis. I just find it interesting that pretty much all the same conditions exist in Syria as did Libya wrt ot humanitarian issues. Granted there is a much more complex dynamic going on in Syria - but no less a humanitarian crisis is happening there. It seems we (the west) have very selective consciousness' when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm not saying thats a good or bad thing, just stating an observation. And don't take anything written here as an advocacy for action. Just saying we're horribly inconsistant, which probably leads many nations to not like us or respect us. Just sayin....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, it's partly about what is possible. That's one reason I advocate defense spending cuts - to make less of this stuff seem possible to our politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, it's partly about what is possible. That's one reason I advocate defense spending cuts - to make less of this stuff seem possible to our politicians.

 

that's the thing about standing armies. They get folk wisdom like Satchel Paige's backwards.

 

Why sit when you can stand?

Why stand when you can march?

 

Since the world tour of the Great White Fleet we have tended to think of the miltary as an instrument of foreign policy. Most of our major fuckups have come about thinking we can do 'nation building' with the same tools we use nation breaking.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both good points (Tom and Sarosa). However, I don't advocate cutting our military just so there will be less temptation to use it by Politicians. I would rather have a strong military and cut back on (rein in) their political power and ambition so it never occurs to them to go nation building in the first place. And furthermore, WE the citizens share a lot of the blame for allowing pols (even pushing pols) to go to war over stuff that isn't really in the "go to war" category. I'm just as guilty of that myself sometimes. But a lot of the military folks like me who might have been percieved as "cheerleading" back when ended up just as appalled at the ineptitude of how the peace was fought and managed and how horribly huge the scope had become. In the case of Afghanistan post 9/11 - we should have stuck to "nation-breaking" and then told them we would come back even harder if they pulled that shit again. Same with Iraq..... I would have had no problem rolling into Baghdad, killing Saddam and then rolling back out the next week. I don't think ANYONE envisioned it would still be going on 10 years later. FUCK!

 

I just fear that breaking the military to punish the politicians is the wrong way to go.... Better to remain the biggest, baddest kid on the block and dare anyone to fuck with us, because its unlikely they will. But only come out swinging when there is a clear and justifiable reason. I have no issue with using the Military as an instrument of foreign policy. Its a perfectly legitimate use of the military to project power and occasionally go whack someone who's acting uppity. I'm not sure I buy the complete "whack-a-mole" strategy because to me it implies that we withdraw behind our walls until we get poked. I think there is a balance somewhere between the two extremes.

 

You can't do just one thing. Weaken the military, weaken the dollar...

 

Twat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are not dickheads just for having a different opinion. I just think that we need to stop doing this stuff. It costs us too much. That said, this could be the "worst case scenario" that tests the limit of my beliefs in this respect. I still struggle with what was right/wrong wrt Libya. A whole city was about to get slaughtered, and would have, had we not taken action. There is no black/white line for us to follow, to discern whether something is in our interests. Different people are going to see it differently.

 

Sol, not trying to argue or anything and I hold similar feelings abotu when its right or not to intervene. However, I would ask where are your personal limits on the Syrian thing? I think far more people have ALREADY been slaughtered than were ever going to be in Libya. And its still happening on a daily basis. I just find it interesting that pretty much all the same conditions exist in Syria as did Libya wrt ot humanitarian issues. Granted there is a much more complex dynamic going on in Syria - but no less a humanitarian crisis is happening there. It seems we (the west) have very selective consciousness' when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm not saying thats a good or bad thing, just stating an observation. And don't take anything written here as an advocacy for action. Just saying we're horribly inconsistant, which probably leads many nations to not like us or respect us. Just sayin....

We should be inconsistent wrt this stuff; not all crises are the same. I'm not sure where my personal line is drawn wrt Syria, but I know we have not reached it yet. In Libya, a multi-national force could strike from the air, to prevent a group of people in a specific geographic area from being slaughtered. I still don't think it was our problem, but if a similar opportunity presented itself in Syria, it might be a closer call for me too.

 

As to our politicians, that reminds me of a Frank Zappa quote. See below.

 

301221_466339390066665_1452385061_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.

 

 

Good thing we got rid of that Kwaddaffi guy and helped the French to build a stable and prosperous Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Raytheon and Boeing stock are up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the world tour of the Great White Fleet we have tended to think of the military as an instrument of foreign policy. Most of our major fuckups have come about thinking we can do 'nation building' with the same tools we use nation breaking.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I'm sorry - does this "Administration" 'own' this or not??

 

Or do we just do shit in the world and fuck 'em??

 

Sol- your esteemed 'opinion' matters here.

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

The important question is are they still helping us round up Benghazi film Critics?

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

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