Sign in to follow this  
Guest

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

 

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

Just the usual result of Whack-A-Mole. De-regime a place and someone will re-regime it. If you don't fix what you broke, someone will, and you might not like it. OTOH, we generally don't like the outcome whether we do the re-regiming or someone else does.

 

Conclusion: de-regiming places is stupid and never works out well.

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?

 

 

Just the usual result of Whack-A-Mole. De-regime a place and someone will re-regime it. If you don't fix what you broke, someone will, and you might not like it. OTOH, we generally don't like the outcome whether we do the re-regiming or someone else does.

 

Conclusion: de-regiming places is stupid and never works out well.

 

 

There are those who profit from the endless wars. CLUE: The same MF's sponsoring Killery, the bush, little rube and the Lying SOS Ted...

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.[/size]

 

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

 

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

 

Just the usual result of Whack-A-Mole. De-regime a place and someone will re-regime it. If you don't fix what you broke, someone will, and you might not like it. OTOH, we generally don't like the outcome whether we do the re-regiming or someone else does.

 

Conclusion: de-regiming places is stupid and never works out well.

 

 

"Never" is an absolute, and I envy the bliss binary thinking can bring. It's the key to the ecstasy of belief, of faith, which is the opium of all religion. There are joys to be found in discovery though. Real discovery, which isn't partisan research designed to confirm belief, which gives only a cheap rush.

 

However the world is a complicated place. Here's an excellent dissertation on matter incorporating a lot of reality.

 

http://lobelog.com/the-end-of-the-american-empire/

 

Here's the first few bits..

Im here to talk about the end of the American empire. But before I do I want to note that one of our most charming characteristics as Americans is our amnesia. I mean, we are so good at forgetting what weve done and where we did it that we can hide our own Easter eggs.[/size]

 

Im reminded of the geezersomeone about my agewho was sitting in his living room having a drink with his friend while his wife made dinner.

 

He said to his friend, you know, we went to a really terrific restaurant last week. Youd like it. Great atmosphere. Delicious food. Wonderful service.

 

Whats the name of it? his friend asked.

 

He scratched his head. Ah, ah. Ah. What do you call those red flowers you give to women you love?

 

His friend hesitated. A rose?

 

Right. Um, hey, Rose! What was the name of that restaurant we went to last week?

 

 

 

Americans like to forget we ever had an empire or to claim that, if we did, we never really wanted one. But the momentum of Manifest Destiny made us an imperial power. It carried us well beyond the shores of the continent we seized from its original aboriginal and Mexican owners. The Monroe Doctrine proclaimed an American sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. But the American empire was never limited to that sphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If most Floridians pine for the days of being a Spanish colonial acquisition it's news to me. The Germans do not pine for anther Hitler (well, most of them anyway, and the Japanese don't pine for anther Tojo. Do the Libyans pine for Gaddahfi? Some, I suppose.

 

Infrequently enough to be insignificant is sadly inaccurate, as much so as the R2Pers notion of it being both a right and a duty IMO. Thereby we circle nicely back to the point I've mentioned before about the Clintonestas, their collective case of Post Traumatic Rwanda Disorder. To grasp it one must place oneself in their shoes in April of 94.

 

Bill became "leader of the free world". All that effort to get all that power to "make a difference". Imagine being in that spot and knowing that you had one opportunity do something great....and you blew it. 800,000 people hacked to death in a couple months. Took four years of our civil war to kill that many. Seldom have so many been slaughtered in so little time, and AFAIK never on such flimsy, specious bullshit. This is the reason behind the attitude of Rice and Powers, Clintonestas brought back when Hillary became SoS. They appear to have discovered the world is not that simple though, at least I suspect they have. I do not expect them to up an announce they have been wrong though. Tom Jefferson didn't say he had been wrong after returning from witnessing the French Revolution, wherein a wee bit too much blood manure was spread about the Tree of Liberty. He just shut up about that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Tom... there's a far-left theory that claims the US & Britain did create the mess, by backing the Tutsi rebels against the (French-backed) Hutu government.

 

It's based on a view that considers the "anglosphere" and "francosphere" as opponents in a neocolonial sort of cold-war-style proxy war for resources in the area.

 

examples:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Lies-Rwandan-Genocide-Propaganda/dp/1500751111/ref=pd_sim_14_1/184-5900378-0726630?ie=UTF8&dpID=51gAQRmM%2BsL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1W63311SFEAF0NF19PT5

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1926824946/dissivoice-20

 

 

 

 

...Of course, there's a different, opposite theory (also based on this view of Franco vs Anglo proxy conflict), that holds the French entirely responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Tom... there's a far-left theory that claims the US & Britain did create the mess, by backing the Tutsi rebels against the (French-backed) Hutu government.

 

It's based on a view that considers the "anglosphere" and "francosphere" as opponents in a neocolonial sort of cold-war-style proxy war for resources in the area.

 

examples:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Lies-Rwandan-Genocide-Propaganda/dp/1500751111/ref=pd_sim_14_1/184-5900378-0726630?ie=UTF8&dpID=51gAQRmM%2BsL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1W63311SFEAF0NF19PT5

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1926824946/dissivoice-20

 

 

 

 

...Of course, there's a different, opposite theory (also based on this view of Franco vs Anglo proxy conflict), that holds the French entirely responsible.

 

In case you are unaware, Britain and France have been having wars like forever. In fact, A whole bunch of Henry the whatsits of England laid claim to be King of France even after colonization began in the Americas.

 

What business was it of ours again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Tom... there's a far-left theory that claims the US & Britain did create the mess, by backing the Tutsi rebels against the (French-backed) Hutu government.

 

It's based on a view that considers the "anglosphere" and "francosphere" as opponents in a neocolonial sort of cold-war-style proxy war for resources in the area.

 

examples:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Lies-Rwandan-Genocide-Propaganda/dp/1500751111/ref=pd_sim_14_1/184-5900378-0726630?ie=UTF8&dpID=51gAQRmM%2BsL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1W63311SFEAF0NF19PT5

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1926824946/dissivoice-20

 

 

 

 

...Of course, there's a different, opposite theory (also based on this view of Franco vs Anglo proxy conflict), that holds the French entirely responsible.

 

I don't think it's different or opposite. I think both are correct. Meddling created the problem. French meddling, Brit meddling, our meddling. I'm sure all contributed.

 

More meddling will create more problems, not fewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the German meddling, they created the whole Tutsi/Hutu bullshit. Part of the colonial "divide and rule" SOP. You gotta have a minority to place in power that, being a minority, is hopefully dependent on Western support. Divide and rule also works domestically in the US but that is another tale.

 

Nevertheless, Tom, I guarangoddamntee ya that if you stood right next to your neighbor beating his wife to death with your second amendment and did nothing you won't feel good about it, and all the legalistical BS you can dredge up is only going to add to the nausea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, Tom... there's a far-left theory that claims the US & Britain did create the mess, by backing the Tutsi rebels against the (French-backed) Hutu government.

 

It's based on a view that considers the "anglosphere" and "francosphere" as opponents in a neocolonial sort of cold-war-style proxy war for resources in the area.

 

examples:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Lies-Rwandan-Genocide-Propaganda/dp/1500751111/ref=pd_sim_14_1/184-5900378-0726630?ie=UTF8&dpID=51gAQRmM%2BsL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1W63311SFEAF0NF19PT5

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1926824946/dissivoice-20

 

 

 

 

...Of course, there's a different, opposite theory (also based on this view of Franco vs Anglo proxy conflict), that holds the French entirely responsible.

In case you are unaware, Britain and France have been having wars like forever. In fact, A whole bunch of Henry the whatsits of England laid claim to be King of France even after colonization began in the Americas.

 

 

I'm french-canadian, raised in a Province that has its own embassy in Paris, seperate from the Canadian one.

 

You really think I'm unaware that many Francophones, worldwide, consider themselves in a centuries-long struggle against everything Anglo?

 

I just wasn't sure if Tom had ever heard of it.

 

 

What business was it of ours again?

 

Business business, goes the theory.

 

By using Kagame's regime as proxy, gaining preferential access to Congolese copper, gold, diamonds, cobalt, uranium, coltan and oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the German meddling, they created the whole Tutsi/Hutu bullshit. Part of the colonial "divide and rule" SOP. You gotta have a minority to place in power that, being a minority, is hopefully dependent on Western support. Divide and rule also works domestically in the US but that is another tale.

 

Nevertheless, Tom, I guarangoddamntee ya that if you stood right next to your neighbor beating his wife to death with your second amendment and did nothing you won't feel good about it, and all the legalistical BS you can dredge up is only going to add to the nausea.

 

Let's not leave out the Belgians...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's not forget the German meddling, they created the whole Tutsi/Hutu bullshit. Part of the colonial "divide and rule" SOP. You gotta have a minority to place in power that, being a minority, is hopefully dependent on Western support. Divide and rule also works domestically in the US but that is another tale.

 

Nevertheless, Tom, I guarangoddamntee ya that if you stood right next to your neighbor beating his wife to death with your second amendment and did nothing you won't feel good about it, and all the legalistical BS you can dredge up is only going to add to the nausea.

 

Let's not leave out the Belgians...

 

 

Or the film critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's not forget the German meddling, they created the whole Tutsi/Hutu bullshit. Part of the colonial "divide and rule" SOP. You gotta have a minority to place in power that, being a minority, is hopefully dependent on Western support. Divide and rule also works domestically in the US but that is another tale.

 

Nevertheless, Tom, I guarangoddamntee ya that if you stood right next to your neighbor beating his wife to death with your second amendment and did nothing you won't feel good about it, and all the legalistical BS you can dredge up is only going to add to the nausea.

 

Let's not leave out the Belgians...

 

 

Nobody likes the Belgians, although some in Congo are beginning to feel as those might have been "the good ol' days". But it was the Germans who decided who was a Tutsi and who was a Hutu, mostly by nose flatness, and then installed the "Tutsi" as ruling elite due to racial superiority. Had the flatter-nosed "Hutu" peoples been the minority they would have been the racially superior though. Not that the Belgians wouldn't have done the same thing, or anything. Hell, the Germans probably got the idea from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the German meddling, they created the whole Tutsi/Hutu bullshit. Part of the colonial "divide and rule" SOP. You gotta have a minority to place in power that, being a minority, is hopefully dependent on Western support. Divide and rule also works domestically in the US but that is another tale.

 

Nevertheless, Tom, I guarangoddamntee ya that if you stood right next to your neighbor beating his wife to death with your second amendment and did nothing you won't feel good about it, and all the legalistical BS you can dredge up is only going to add to the nausea.

 

What makes you think I would do nothing to help an individual who was being attacked?

 

I do not see the connection you do between that kind of incident and using our military to protect another nation's citizens from their own government. I don't think world policing is like domestic policing and don't agree with our role as world policeman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be a policeman if you helped your neighbor?

 

No, just a citizen, unless I decided to make a citizen's arrest.

 

I see a tiny difference because removing an abusive person does not invite the next one in. Removing an abusive government does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton vs Sanders on Libya

 

...Sanders, for his part, pointed out that as Obama's secretary of state, Clinton "led the effect" for regime change in Libya. "And this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in Iraq," Sanders continued.

 

"Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein are brutal, brutal murdering thugs," Sanders said. "No debate about that. But what we have got to do and what the president was saying is we didn't think thoroughly about what happens the day after you get rid of these dictators."

 

"Regime change often has unintended consequences in Iraq and in Libya right now," Sanders continued, "where ISIS has a very dangerous foothold. And I think if you studied the whole history of American involvement in regime change, you see that quite often."

 

...

 

While Sanders' acknowledgement of the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy is a welcome addition to a mainstream debate that's been lacking that kind of insight, there's reason to be skeptical about how much Sanders actually understands the concept of unintended consequences. Sanders has supported a more aggressive posture vis a vis Russia as well as Iran. There are unintended consequences to inserting the U.S. into situations where it has no vested national security interest, as well as unintended consequences to favoring undemocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia over undemocratic regimes like Iran instead of striving for free trade and friendly relations with all countries...

 

 

 

Police (and meddlesome neighbors) are not always welcomed as liberators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you be a policeman if you helped your neighbor?

 

No, just a citizen, unless I decided to make a citizen's arrest.

 

I see a tiny difference because removing an abusive person does not invite the next one in. Removing an abusive government does.

 

 

How so?

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.

These are all much better reasons than the r2p bs they used to justify it in the press and UN.

 

It seems much more likely that they saw their two pet dictatorships on either side get tossed in quick succession, so they decided to make a bit of lemonade by organising some protests in benghazi, which provided an excuse for their intervention when the army moved to squash them.

 

Your pollyanna view of our fearless leaders is not one I share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If most Floridians pine for the days of being a Spanish colonial acquisition it's news to me. The Germans do not pine for anther Hitler (well, most of them anyway, and the Japanese don't pine for anther Tojo. Do the Libyans pine for Gaddahfi? Some, I suppose.

 

Infrequently enough to be insignificant is sadly inaccurate, as much so as the R2Pers notion of it being both a right and a duty IMO. Thereby we circle nicely back to the point I've mentioned before about the Clintonestas, their collective case of Post Traumatic Rwanda Disorder. To grasp it one must place oneself in their shoes in April of 94.

 

Bill became "leader of the free world". All that effort to get all that power to "make a difference". Imagine being in that spot and knowing that you had one opportunity do something great....and you blew it. 800,000 people hacked to death in a couple months. Took four years of our civil war to kill that many. Seldom have so many been slaughtered in so little time, and AFAIK never on such flimsy, specious bullshit. This is the reason behind the attitude of Rice and Powers, Clintonestas brought back when Hillary became SoS. They appear to have discovered the world is not that simple though, at least I suspect they have. I do not expect them to up an announce they have been wrong though. Tom Jefferson didn't say he had been wrong after returning from witnessing the French Revolution, wherein a wee bit too much blood manure was spread about the Tree of Liberty. He just shut up about that shit.

 

Excellent observations. The problem with that mentality is where do you draw the line? Is there a threshold of death that must be met before we intervene? Because we can't save everyone everywhere. And as we've painfully seen over the last decade and a half - interventions usually have some very bad unintended consequences. The State Dept historically seems to do a really shitty job of thinking through the "what ifs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The line is drawn by the boys making money our of it. When it is crossed they call their pocket senator and get something done.

 

Pretty simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Would you be a policeman if you helped your neighbor?

 

No, just a citizen, unless I decided to make a citizen's arrest.

 

I see a tiny difference because removing an abusive person does not invite the next one in. Removing an abusive government does.

 

 

How so?

 

 

Our political nature abhors a vacuum.

 

Maybe you can provide a counter-example? Where has a country been de-regimed and just stayed that way?

 

Seems to me that they ALL get re-regimed in short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If most Floridians pine for the days of being a Spanish colonial acquisition it's news to me. The Germans do not pine for anther Hitler (well, most of them anyway, and the Japanese don't pine for anther Tojo. Do the Libyans pine for Gaddahfi? Some, I suppose.

 

Infrequently enough to be insignificant is sadly inaccurate, as much so as the R2Pers notion of it being both a right and a duty IMO. Thereby we circle nicely back to the point I've mentioned before about the Clintonestas, their collective case of Post Traumatic Rwanda Disorder. To grasp it one must place oneself in their shoes in April of 94.

 

Bill became "leader of the free world". All that effort to get all that power to "make a difference". Imagine being in that spot and knowing that you had one opportunity do something great....and you blew it. 800,000 people hacked to death in a couple months. Took four years of our civil war to kill that many. Seldom have so many been slaughtered in so little time, and AFAIK never on such flimsy, specious bullshit. This is the reason behind the attitude of Rice and Powers, Clintonestas brought back when Hillary became SoS. They appear to have discovered the world is not that simple though, at least I suspect they have. I do not expect them to up an announce they have been wrong though. Tom Jefferson didn't say he had been wrong after returning from witnessing the French Revolution, wherein a wee bit too much blood manure was spread about the Tree of Liberty. He just shut up about that shit.

 

Excellent observations. The problem with that mentality is where do you draw the line? Is there a threshold of death that must be met before we intervene? Because we can't save everyone everywhere. And as we've painfully seen over the last decade and a half - interventions usually have some very bad unintended consequences. The State Dept historically seems to do a really shitty job of thinking through the "what ifs".

 

 

The answer is different for every situation. The mistake of the R2Pers is crafting an elaborate ideology to "justify" it. This shit can't be policy, as in all situations involving violence you weigh the odds and the costs and make your call. Blind legalism has its place but sometimes ya gotta do your own thinking, awareness of which humbles the wise.

 

The Obama's are lawyers. They looked into the torture, surveillance, and whatnot and found that Congress had made it legal so they did nothing. There is a reason nobody makes their company lawyer CEO.

 

I still see some traces of the old boys at State, the problem is the group-think of our current NSC. They don't challenge each other. Middle Management Suck Ups....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hWBGSZo4lU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, your answer boils down to "intervention is right when it's possible and irrelevant when impossible."

 

What's possible is a relevant consideration.

 

That's why I advocate dramatic cuts in our military spending: to make our intervention possible in fewer situations.

 

Mostly because in my view it turns out to be wrong more often than not even when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a rational idea but an irrational proposal for action. America loves her military. America especially loves her Marines. The level is comparable to your love for your guns, and if you think the NRA has a powerful lobby... The sort of change required, to have the public support politicians who say America is fundamentally too stupid to be packing heat, is not a message We The People are remotely open to at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a rational idea but an irrational proposal for action. America loves her military. America especially loves her Marines. The level is comparable to your love for your guns, and if you think the NRA has a powerful lobby... The sort of change required, to have the public support politicians who say America is fundamentally too stupid to be packing heat, is not a message We The People are remotely open to at this time.

 

Yes, we do love our military but it isn't a matter of the number of them or the whizbang weapons.

 

Outside of Happy Jack and Lockheed-Martin I don't know too many people who love the F35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a rational idea but an irrational proposal for action. America loves her military. America especially loves her Marines. The level is comparable to your love for your guns, and if you think the NRA has a powerful lobby... The sort of change required, to have the public support politicians who say America is fundamentally too stupid to be packing heat, is not a message We The People are remotely open to at this time.

 

I don't care. I said we should end our stupid war on weed for many years before most Americans were ready to listen. I'm used to being wrong for a long time before being right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

...

 

I see a tiny difference because removing an abusive person does not invite the next one in. Removing an abusive government does.

 

 

How so?

 

 

Our political nature abhors a vacuum.

 

Maybe you can provide a counter-example? Where has a country been de-regimed and just stayed that way?

 

Seems to me that they ALL get re-regimed in short order.

 

 

Or, to put it another way...

 

 

... the vacuum of their collapse would be filled with Islamists....

 

But I figured you already knew that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And to you the entire world looks the same, just different colors in the map. I get that. That's why your anecdotal examples appear to make perfect sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to you the entire world looks the same, just different colors in the map. I get that. That's why your anecdotal examples appear to make perfect sense to you.

 

Maybe you're better at anecdotes. We have yet to see an answer to this one:

 

Where has a country been de-regimed and just stayed that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

And to you the entire world looks the same, just different colors in the map. I get that. That's why your anecdotal examples appear to make perfect sense to you.

 

Maybe you're better at anecdotes. We have yet to see an answer to this one:

 

Where has a country been de-regimed and just stayed that way?

 

 

Well, we "de-regimed" the Brits in 1776 and its lasted a while so far. Germany, Italy and Japan are good examples of de-regimes operations in 1945 that stuck.

 

We de-regimed Kuwait in 1991 and it stayed de-regimed of the bad guys. We de-regimed S. Korea in the 1950s of the bad guys and its stayed de-regimed ever since.

 

Panama and Grenada has stayed de-regimed and stable.

 

I guess those were the Halcyon days though. We haven't done well since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If Korea is all de-regimed, have we left?

 

Or are we not done yet?

 

Well, there is no such thing as Korea. But S. Korea was de-regimed and is stable. We are there to prevent the bad-regime from coming back. We are also there for other reasons that are not entirely focused on the North.

 

In hindsight, we probably should have de-regimed the north with nukes a while back. They've been a bit of a thorn in our side. And something tells me the Chinese are fed up enough with the "little tyrant" that they might even look the other way if we tried this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And to you the entire world looks the same, just different colors in the map. I get that. That's why your anecdotal examples appear to make perfect sense to you.

 

Maybe you're better at anecdotes. We have yet to see an answer to this one:

 

Where has a country been de-regimed and just stayed that way?

 

 

Well, we "de-regimed" the Brits in 1776 and its lasted a while so far. Germany, Italy and Japan are good examples of de-regimes operations in 1945 that stuck.

 

We de-regimed Kuwait in 1991 and it stayed de-regimed of the bad guys. We de-regimed S. Korea in the 1950s of the bad guys and its stayed de-regimed ever since.

 

Panama and Grenada has stayed de-regimed and stable.

 

I guess those were the Halcyon days though. We haven't done well since.

 

 

Don't forget the Philippines.

 

We have been screwing a lot of pooches of late though. NTTAWWT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Korea is all de-regimed, have we left?

 

Or are we not done yet?

 

Well, there is no such thing as Korea. But S. Korea was de-regimed and is stable. We are there to prevent the bad-regime from coming back. ...

 

 

And that was my point to Mark. If we de-regime a place and leave, someone will re-regime it. We might not like the results. If we stay, possibly for decades, we may like the results. But as Mark notes, not so much of late. I think there's something wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

If Korea is all de-regimed, have we left?

 

Or are we not done yet?

 

Well, there is no such thing as Korea. But S. Korea was de-regimed and is stable. We are there to prevent the bad-regime from coming back. ...

 

 

And that was my point to Mark. If we de-regime a place and leave, someone will re-regime it. We might not like the results. If we stay, possibly for decades, we may like the results. But as Mark notes, not so much of late. I think there's something wrong with that.

 

 

Actually, I think I noted that before Mark Johnson noted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Korea is all de-regimed, have we left?

 

Or are we not done yet?

Well, there is no such thing as Korea. But S. Korea was de-regimed and is stable. We are there to prevent the bad-regime from coming back. We are also there for other reasons that are not entirely focused on the North.

 

Ahem, you are referring to the recognised national government from the north which was welcomed by the general population when they tossed a us-installed southern dictator? (before the re-installation ofc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Now where have we seen this before????

 

His worst mistake in office was "failing to plan for the day after" in Libya, President Obama said during an interview

 

 

Its always the "day after" that's the bitch.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now where have we seen this before????

 

His worst mistake in office was "failing to plan for the day after" in Libya, President Obama said during an interview

 

 

Its always the "day after" that's the bitch.....

 

 

I'd say "the decades after" not just the day.

 

Nation building takes a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Parliament Select Committee Report Agrees With Obama

 

Essentially, Cameron and his NATO allies cherry-picked evidence to justify the intervention and failed to think even one step ahead once the dictator fell. Sound familiar?

 

Clinton may regret her support for the disastrous Iraq War, but she has shown no indication that she'll budge an inch in reassessing her ownership of the debacle that is Libya.

 

Earlier this month at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Commander in Chief forum, Clinton was asked by a veteran who identified as a Democrat, "How do you respond to progressives like myself who worry and have concerns that your hawkish foreign policy will continue?"

 

Clinton's replied that she views "force as a last resort, not a first choice," but that with regards to Libya, "I think taking that action was the right decision. Not taking it, and permitting there to be an ongoing civil war in Libya, would have been as dangerous and threatening as what we are now seeing in Syria."

 

This is amazing statement from a candidate who is running largely on her foreign policy expertise and sound judgment. Libya IS in a state of civil war and while the body count might not rise to the humanitarian catastrophe that is Syria, there is no better descriptor that can be placed on what post-intervention Libya looks like than what President Obama called it earlier this year—a "shit show."

 

 

Careful readers may have noticed that I'm not a huge fan of Obama's but I have to say that expressing regret for his administration's Libya policies and calling the results a "shit show" is pretty darn refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libyans Would Have Preferred That Hillary Keep Her "Smart Power" Away From Their Country

...
Those living in the capital say they are exhausted by power cuts, price hikes and a lack of cash flow as rival authorities and militias battle for control of the fragmented oil-rich country.

"I hate to say it but our life was better under the previous regime," says Fayza al-Naas, a 42-year-old pharmacist, referring to Kadhafi's more than four decades of rule.

Today, "we wait for hours outside banks to beg cashiers to give us some of our own money. Everything is three times more expensive."

 

...

 

It was only last month that Hillary Clinton defended her forceful support of U.S. intervention in Libya on the grounds that it averted a civil war. While such cognitive dissonance isn't quite the attention-grabber that Gary Johnson's notorious "What is Aleppo?" gaffe was, it is a remarkable thing for the current presidential front-runner to insist that the obviously short-sighted intervention—which directly led to an ongoing civil war and which President Obama describes as his greatest foreign policy regret—remains an example of "smart power at its best."

 

 

Good thing we protected those civilians and averted a civil war. Smart. Winning.

 

b1e9d19c_Charlie-Sheen-Winning-Duh.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2011 at 5:56 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

Quote
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

I never did figure out whether the Libyans bombed Pearl Harbor.

On 5/26/2011 at 2:32 PM, Mark K said:

 

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


The de-regiming worked out about like I expected. You nation-build for decades or you get chaos. Which might spread to neighbors. Like Niger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I never did figure out whether the Libyans bombed Pearl Harbor.


The de-regiming worked out about like I expected. You nation-build for decades or you get chaos. Which might spread to neighbors. Like Niger.

No question it looks real real simple...if one can ignore what was about to go down in Benghazi at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

No question it looks real real simple...if one can ignore what was about to go down in Benghazi at the time. 

You mean a national emergency like the one we're facing in Niger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean a national emergency like the one we're facing in Niger?

 The government of Niger is about to massacre a bunch of civilians in Benghazi? Trying to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia? The governments of France and Britain and all the Gulfies calling for an end to the decades of madness? 

Who knew?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 The government of Niger is about to massacre a bunch of civilians in Benghazi? Trying to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia? The governments of France and Britain and all the Gulfies calling for an end to the decades of madness? 

Who knew?? 

I didn't. I've been asking what the big emergency over there that has been threatening our nation for the past several years has been.

Do you have a source on those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I didn't. I've been asking what the big emergency over there that has been threatening our nation for the past several years has been.

Do you have a source on those?

Who said Niger was a big emergency that has been threatening our nation? AFAIK it's about keeping ISIL/AQ from taking the place over. 

 Yes I do. Google is your friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:

Who said Niger was a big emergency that has been threatening our nation?

Obama did, apparently.

One of those quiet emergencies that threatens our nation without anyone really noticing, but it had to be an emergency threat.

It's either that, or we are hunting 9/11 perps in Niger, or it might just be another "kinetic military action" like the Libya operation. Those don't require any Congressional authorization.

Or, if none of those three, it could just be more unauthorized meddling by a Unitary Executive backed up by a Congress and citizenry that just don't give a fuck. Until a soldier's death can be used to show how terrible the other side is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Obama did, apparently.

One of those quiet emergencies that threatens our nation without anyone really noticing, but it had to be an emergency threat.

It's either that, or we are hunting 9/11 perps in Niger, or it might just be another "kinetic military action" like the Libya operation. Those don't require any Congressional authorization.

Or, if none of those three, it could just be more unauthorized meddling by a Unitary Executive backed up by a Congress and citizenry that just don't give a fuck. Until a soldier's death can be used to show how terrible the other side is.

I remember the start of this posted here. Now there's 6000 on the ground? Trump didn't build that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark K said:

 The government of Niger is about to massacre a bunch of civilians in Benghazi? Trying to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia? The governments of France and Britain and all the Gulfies calling for an end to the decades of madness? 

Who knew?? 

Were those things going on in January, when Obama sent the B2's and Reapers to attack Sirte?

And if they were, did they create some emergency that threatens the US?

And what was the big emergency in Libya last month when Donald sent armed drones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Were those things going on in January, when Obama sent the B2's and Reapers to attack Sirte?

And if they were, did they create some emergency that threatens the US?

And what was the big emergency in Libya last month when Donald sent armed drones?

Some folks have long memories when it comes to someone attempting to assassinate them. Just like you do when someone attempts to takeyurgunz, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 6:29 AM, Mark K said:

No question it looks real real simple...if one can ignore what was about to go down in Benghazi at the time. 

The only people who were going to miss those terrorists were the CIA.

History has shown that it would have been better for everyone to just let them go and find some new terrorists to fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mark K said:
20 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Were those things going on in January, when Obama sent the B2's and Reapers to attack Sirte?

And if they were, did they create some emergency that threatens the US?

And what was the big emergency in Libya last month when Donald sent armed drones?

Some folks have long memories when it comes to someone attempting to assassinate them.

When did the Libyans try to assassinate Obama? Or did they take a shot at Trump?

Which of those two strikes are you saying was prompted by an assassination attempt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

The only people who were going to miss those terrorists were the CIA.

History has shown that it would have been better for everyone to just let them go and find some new terrorists to fund.

All Muslims aren't terrorists. In fact some of them are only old folks, women and kids. Not even all the adult men of military age are terrorists, and as shocking as that may seem to a great many Americans these days, it's true nonetheless.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites