Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

 

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.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done good in Syria..... :ph34r:

CIA-armed militias are shooting at Pentagon-armed ones in Syria

Srian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter 5-year-old civil war.

The fighting has intensified over the past two months, as CIA-armed units and Pentagon-armed ones have repeatedly shot at each other as they have maneuvered through contested territory on the northern outskirts of Aleppo, U.S. officials and rebel leaders have confirmed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Done good in Syria..... :ph34r:

CIA-armed militias are shooting at Pentagon-armed ones in Syria

Srian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter 5-year-old civil war.

The fighting has intensified over the past two months, as CIA-armed units and Pentagon-armed ones have repeatedly shot at each other as they have maneuvered through contested territory on the northern outskirts of Aleppo, U.S. officials and rebel leaders have confirmed.

 

 

 

 

Well, the CIA and the DOD have always been at odds. Maybe this is finally the proxy war they've always wanted to fight :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers. Heck of a lot of people around Benghazi are mighty glad they Quackdaffy is gone too. Same can be said about a lot of Libyans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers.

 

 

Don't forget Grenada and Panama. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers. Heck of a lot of people around Benghazi are mighty glad they Quackdaffy is gone too. Same can be said about a lot of Libyans.

 

 

Haiti? Mark the armchair ass-clown makes a funny.. :rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers.

 

 

Don't forget Grenada and Panama. ;)

 

 

Panama? You must be proud... :ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers.

 

 

Don't forget Grenada and Panama. ;)

 

 

The Philippines. Colonialist's daughters rescued from their virginity thank you for your service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers.

 

 

Don't forget Grenada and Panama. ;)

 

 

The Philippines. Colonialist's daughters rescued from their virginity thank you for your service.

 

 

Philippines? Yes that was a major debacle and a double cross.. Thank you for another example of your hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers. Heck of a lot of people around Benghazi are mighty glad they Quackdaffy is gone too. Same can be said about a lot of Libyans.

 

 

Aren't Somalia and Haiti still basket cases?

 

When did we rescue Kuwaitis from their own government? Or Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia?

 

As for the "some folks here, some folks there" I'd guess that there are also some folks in those places who disagree.

 

It's hard for me to tell that we've done more good than harm by leaving Libya as a failed state and terrorism haven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers. Heck of a lot of people around Benghazi are mighty glad they Quackdaffy is gone too. Same can be said about a lot of Libyans.

 

 

Aren't Somalia and Haiti still basket cases?

 

When did we rescue Kuwaitis from their own government? Or Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia?

 

As for the "some folks here, some folks there" I'd guess that there are also some folks in those places who disagree.

 

It's hard for me to tell that we've done more good than harm by leaving Libya as a failed state and terrorism haven.

 

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see. Liberal interventionists find what I am talking about very difficult to comprehend, I get that. However, I beg you to attempt to think out of your box. Give it a shot.

 

The government of Kuwait was the one installed by Saddam and the governments of those states were Big Cotton slave masters. I haven't been keeping close tabs on Libertarians of late, but has the subject of slavery become one of their holy quests to restore? Corporations are people too, and Big Cotton was clearly one of our leading, if not the leading, corporate citizen of the time. A far larger percentage of the US economy than the Koch brothers are now, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Somalia and Haiti. Kuwaitis were and still are mighty grateful. A bunch of folks in what was once Yugoslavia. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al. The French welcomed us with flowers. Heck of a lot of people around Benghazi are mighty glad they Quackdaffy is gone too. Same can be said about a lot of Libyans.

 

 

Aren't Somalia and Haiti still basket cases?

 

When did we rescue Kuwaitis from their own government? Or Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia?

 

As for the "some folks here, some folks there" I'd guess that there are also some folks in those places who disagree.

 

It's hard for me to tell that we've done more good than harm by leaving Libya as a failed state and terrorism haven.

 

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see. Liberal interventionists find what I am talking about very difficult to comprehend, I get that. However, I beg you to attempt to think out of your box. Give it a shot.

 

The government of Kuwait was the one installed by Saddam and the governments of those states were Big Cotton slave masters. I haven't been keeping close tabs on Libertarians of late, but has the subject of slavery become one of their holy quests to restore? Corporations are people too, and Big Cotton was clearly one of our leading, if not the leading, corporate citizen of the time. A far larger percentage of the US economy than the Koch brothers are now, actually.

 

 

The goal post continues to be "doing more good than harm" as stated above. The fact that some people like our meddling and benefit from it does not mean we have done more good than harm for anyone but those people. But there are other people, not to mention US interests.

 

Our own government was "installed" by the French, without whom we could not have won our revolutionary war. Who cares how another country got its government? It's still not our job to protect them from that government.

 

Slavery was doomed to fail and free states were already demonstrably more prosperous so I'm not so sure that the Civil War did more good than harm. It certainly was not a police action designed to protect people from their own government like the other situations we are discussing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware you believe those people who were meddled with do not know what is good or bad for them, and they are but children. It may be impossible to convince you we are NOT the only adult in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware you believe those people who were meddled with do not know what is good or bad for them, and they are but children. It may be impossible to convince you we are NOT the only adult in the world.

 

You're probably aware of a great number of things that are not true, so what's one more?

 

I believe that meddling is treating them like children and leaving them alone to find their own way is treating them like adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am aware you believe those people who were meddled with do not know what is good or bad for them, and they are but children. It may be impossible to convince you we are NOT the only adult in the world.

 

You're probably aware of a great number of things that are not true, so what's one more?

 

I believe that meddling is treating them like children and leaving them alone to find their own way is treating them like adults.

 

 

Even better stop killing their children!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am aware you believe those people who were meddled with do not know what is good or bad for them, and they are but children. It may be impossible to convince you we are NOT the only adult in the world.

 

You're probably aware of a great number of things that are not true, so what's one more?

 

I believe that meddling is treating them like children and leaving them alone to find their own way is treating them like adults.

 

 

I am aware you believe that. If you believe their opinions aren't relevant you view them as children....sometimes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see.

 

Exactly. Hard to have an honest conversation about a topic when we start out by changing the facts on which the conversation is founded. NATO took action in Libya to prevent a massacre in an ongoing civil war. No more, no less.

 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see.

 

Exactly. Hard to have an honest conversation about a topic when we start out by changing the facts on which the conversation is founded. NATO took action in Libya to prevent a massacre in an ongoing civil war. No more, no less.

 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

 

 

Was a massacre actually occurring or was this some sort of pre-emptive action. It kinda looks like we just got to change who was doing the massacaring.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What difference does it make?

 

Got it, just another bunch of dead Africans.

 

 

EBOLA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see.

 

Exactly. Hard to have an honest conversation about a topic when we start out by changing the facts on which the conversation is founded. NATO took action in Libya to prevent a massacre in an ongoing civil war. No more, no less.

 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

 

 

Was a massacre actually occurring or was this some sort of pre-emptive action. It kinda looks like we just got to change who was doing the massacaring.

 

 

 

 

Didn't work out real great, but assuming it would have had we left NATO and the Gulfies to do a half-assed job of it is a stretch, to say the least. Sherman wasn't wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What you stand for liberty and democracy by sending in your troops??? Yeah that will work. There is only one thing Libyans hate more than Gadaffi at the moment and that is the thought of US soldiers in the sovereign space.

 

OH, bullshit! Every libyan I've seen on TV is BEGGING for the US to help them and are incredulous we haven't yet. At no point am I advocating sending in ground troops there. For one, we don't have many left that are not already pre-occupied. But we can be doing quite a bit of other stuff like getting the rebels food, guns, and ammo.

 

Well we can say that the propaganda machine is still alive and well in the USA. So who are the rebels fighting with then? they are not all members of Gadaffi's family or hired soldiers of fortune. Some people honestly believe in the guy. blink.gif

 

I Agree Gadaffi is a tryant and should go, but only if the people want it. And only by the people.

 

So let's just watch them fight helicopters and machine guns bare handed and see how it shakes out? That will tell us what the "will of the people" is?

 

No. It's in everybody's best interest to see this be a short war. Especially for the old, and the women and kids that live in there.

 

 

So is the "short war" over yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see.

 

Exactly. Hard to have an honest conversation about a topic when we start out by changing the facts on which the conversation is founded. NATO took action in Libya to prevent a massacre in an ongoing civil war. No more, no less.

 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

 

 

Was a massacre actually occurring or was this some sort of pre-emptive action. It kinda looks like we just got to change who was doing the massacaring.

 

 

 

 

Didn't work out real great, but assuming it would have had we left NATO and the Gulfies to do a half-assed job of it is a stretch, to say the least. Sherman wasn't wrong.

 

 

We picked sides we were on the side of those now in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The goal posts have moved from rescuing some folks to making whole complete states I see.

Exactly. Hard to have an honest conversation about a topic when we start out by changing the facts on which the conversation is founded. NATO took action in Libya to prevent a massacre in an ongoing civil war. No more, no less.

 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

 

Was a massacre actually occurring or was this some sort of pre-emptive action. It kinda looks like we just got to change who was doing the massacaring.

 

Didn't work out real great, but assuming it would have had we left NATO and the Gulfies to do a half-assed job of it is a stretch, to say the least. Sherman wasn't wrong.

 

We picked sides we were on the side of those now in power.

 

Who is in power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark the armchair ass-clown is nothing if not a hypocrite. Defending the libyian debacle merely because it happened under killery's tenure. Had the debacle been performed under a Republican secretary of state, Mark the armchair ass-clown partisan dupe would have shit itself and be screaming for a goddamn pamper change..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

Compared to Dubya's biggest failing was preparing for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, I'd consider it rather insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

Compared to Dubya's biggest failing was preparing for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, I'd consider it rather insignificant.

 

 

Nope. It's merely a continuation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

 

Failing to prepare for the aftermath is not an expression of regret for killing the guy, Fukt Tup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

Compared to Dubya's biggest failing was preparing for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, I'd consider it rather insignificant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

 

Failing to prepare for the aftermath is not an expression of regret for killing the guy, Fukt Tup.

 

 

That's true. The lesson he learned seems to have been to re-regime better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya was a colony of spain, then italy, then France and England.

 

Why was it our problem?

 

Roman era to 640 AD
Islamic rule 640–1510
Spanish rule 1510–1530
Order of Saint John 1530–1551
Ottoman rule 1551–1911
Italian occupation 1911–1934
Italian Libya 1934–1943
Allied occupation 1943–1951
Kingdom of Libya 1951–1969
Libyan Arab Republic 1969–1977
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1977–2011
First Civil War 2011
National Transitional Council 2011–2012
General National Congress 2012–2014
House of Representatives 2014–present
Second Civil War 2014–present

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Killery came. killery saw, killery used american military power to destroy a country.... Next up, Syria, illegal arms shipments, four dead americans and what difference does it make... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I defend it because I am aware of some of what Gaddafi did. That assclown killed a lot of people. He supported violent insurgents all over Africa and only a few year previous tried to have the king of SA assassinated. When you grow up, Duk Fuk, I'll tell ya all about it.

 

Wrong again.. Jackass

 

US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake

 

 

Without boots on the ground, what the fuck did he think would happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites