Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

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?

scarecrow.jpg

Share this post


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

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.  

You are just believing the hysterical propaganda they used to justify the destruction of that country.

I refer you, again, to that video of Qaddafi riding around in an open car for 20 minutes, slowly driving through narrow streets, even touching crowds of people from teh side of the road at one point.

A hostile population was not one of his problems.

The alarmist massacre predictions never had any credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 2:01 PM, Mark K said:

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. 

OK, so what did some unnamed assassination attempt against somebody have to do with Obama's strike early this year and Trump's recent one?

By the way, I noticed that you seem to have something to say to me about gunz and took up the discussion in the appropriate thread. Say what you have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But so far, he's the only president who HASN'T gone to war of the last three. 


Sending armed drones to bomb Libya is downright unfriendly behavior. When they're not instigating it, it's the kind of thing that the French won't even let you fly over their country to do.

If someone sent an armed drone to bomb America, would that be an act of war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 3:35 PM, Battlecheese said:

You are just believing the hysterical propaganda they used to justify the destruction of that country.

I refer you, again, to that video of Qaddafi riding around in an open car for 20 minutes, slowly driving through narrow streets, even touching crowds of people from teh side of the road at one point.

A hostile population was not one of his problems.

The alarmist massacre predictions never had any credibility.

 

Share this post


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

 

We rescued them from that guy years ago. Or, the French did with our help. But if they're better off, why do they still need bombing this year?

Share this post


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

 

Have you actually watched that video? the size and behavior of the crowds is interesting to compare. Noteably the nice big crowd being used as the default picture for the movie is a big crowd of active people that Gaddafi managed to convince to show up for the cameras to cheer for him. Far and away the largest and most involved crowd in the whole video.

 

Unpopular leaders get booted in an afternoon. It doesn't take 7 months of bombing and funding terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Have you actually watched that video? the size and behavior of the crowds is interesting to compare. Noteably the nice big crowd being used as the default picture for the movie is a big crowd of active people that Gaddafi managed to convince to show up for the cameras to cheer for him. Far and away the largest and most involved crowd in the whole video.

 

Unpopular leaders get booted in an afternoon. It doesn't take 7 months of bombing and funding terrorists.

You don't recall your own statement 

Quote

A hostile population was not one of his problems.

that Gad-daffy had no existing PR problems in Libya, I guess. 

Share this post


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

 

We rescued them from that guy years ago. Or, the French did with our help. But if they're better off, why do they still need bombing this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

You don't recall your own statement 

that Gad-daffy had no existing PR problems in Libya, I guess. 

Maybe you should try arguing about what I actually wrote?

Share this post


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

Maybe you should try arguing about what I actually wrote?

  I am. See the sentence of yours I quoted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 3:29 PM, 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. 

On 11/1/2017 at 6:01 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

For some reason, the link above to Madison's thoughts on the subject lead to the wrong page. Here's the correct one:

03240318.gif

I see our Executive doing far more than repelling sudden invasions.


What aggression against us was Obama repelling when he initiated the kinetic military action in Libya?

What aggression against us was he repelling earlier this year when he sent the B2's and drones?

What aggression against us was Trump repelling when he sent the armed drones?

Share this post


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


What aggression against us was Obama repelling when he initiated the kinetic military action in Libya?

What aggression against us was he repelling earlier this year when he sent the B2's and drones?

What aggression against us was Trump repelling when he sent the armed drones?

What aggression did Congress object to? 

Share this post


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

What aggression did Congress object to? 

The answer appears to me to be the same as the answer to my three questions: none.

And that's kinda the problem I'm pointing to here. We've decided that the executive power to repel that Madison intended includes things that go far beyond repelling aggression against us.

Things that shouldn't be entrusted to one man only.

That would be true even if the man in question were not Trump. But the fact that he is the man makes the question more important to me.

 

Share this post


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

What aggression did Congress object to? 

The other answer, of course, is that when Obama unnecessarily "consulted" Congress about the defensive kinetic military action he was forced to take, he only consulted hawks.

As I mentioned upthread, that's not consulting Congress to me. That's preaching to the choir. Consultation should allow those opposed to the war kinetic military action to speak and vote on the matter.

Share this post


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

The other answer, of course, is that when Obama unnecessarily "consulted" Congress about the defensive kinetic military action he was forced to take, he only consulted hawks.

As I mentioned upthread, that's not consulting Congress to me. That's preaching to the choir. Consultation should allow those opposed to the war kinetic military action to speak and vote on the matter.

I see you agree that Congress hasn't objected. I suggest the best COA now, for you, is to pretend that Congress was and remains unaware of our operations in Libya. I imagine Random could help you out with that, if he can be found. 

  

Share this post


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

I see you agree that Congress hasn't objected. I suggest the best COA now, for you, is to pretend that Congress was and remains unaware of our operations in Libya. I imagine Random could help you out with that, if he can be found. 

  

I didn't buy into the show by Graham, among others, who were so stunned by our operations in Niger. As I said at the time, if they meant it they would do what Congress does when they mean it: cut off money.

They don't mean to stop the Unitary Executive from initiating wars. We don't intend to make them, obviously.

The bestest COA for America is to trust one man, not the Congress, to initiate war. And it's bestest even if we elect Donald Trump. I'm not sure what kind of rock bottom it will take for Americans to rethink that plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow the divorce thread in GA got into foreign policy. Mark's right. Random can help.

4 hours ago, random said:
4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/11/veterans-day-2017.html

 

Still confused over what any of this has to do with divorce.

This has nothing to do with divorce of course, in the same way as your linked article (well written as it was) has little to do with the points I have been making.  It failed to address the that the culture of war since WWII has not been in defence of the citizens of the USA, as it is portrayed.

The change in the attitude to the 'warrior' referred to in the link has happened in Australia as well.  It is a post Vietnam program to gain mindless and total support for the 'warrior', regardless of who they are killing and it worked.  Brilliant in concept and stunning in execution.  Without that change the invasions of and attacks on defenceless countries would be electoral suicide. 

But I will take your hint.  It's done here.

Random is right.

WWII was the last time we were defending ourselves.

Share this post


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

I didn't buy into the show by Graham, among others, who were so stunned by our operations in Niger. As I said at the time, if they meant it they would do what Congress does when they mean it: cut off money.

They don't mean to stop the Unitary Executive from initiating wars. We don't intend to make them, obviously.

The bestest COA for America is to trust one man, not the Congress, to initiate war. And it's bestest even if we elect Donald Trump. I'm not sure what kind of rock bottom it will take for Americans to rethink that plan.

That's all valid. What I am kicking back about is the attempt to label these operations illegal. Not only is the judiciary branch never going to dip into this stuff, it covers up the real problem:

  images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEoifgnt2MBxDePQ2YDFz

 

Share this post


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

That's all valid. What I am kicking back about is the attempt to label these operations illegal. Not only is the judiciary branch never going to dip into this stuff, it covers up the real problem:

  images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEoifgnt2MBxDePQ2YDFz

 

I think you're right about the real problem, wrong about the legality. At least in part. You're right that the courts will do everything they can to avoid involvement in such a question. Never is a long time but maybe never.

But whether courts, Congress, or you will admit it, the Libya operation, among others, was illegal. If it wasn't, I want to know when we were attacked (war powers act) or how our bombing assistance was related to capturing 9*11 perps (2001 AUMF). There are no answers to either question so the operation was/is illegal.

As well it should be. I'm glad the War Powers Act isn't broad enough to cover it. I just wish pretty much everyone wouldn't ignore the illegality nor the larger but related issue that we shouldn't have one man deciding on wars. Even if the man isn't Donald Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 7:56 AM, Mark K said:

  I am. See the sentence of yours I quoted. 

No, you are going all uncooperative tom on me. You are inventing rubbish.

I observed "A hostile population was not one of his problems.", and you start crapping on about PR. There was lots of international press support for the assault upon Libya, but precious little evidence for their panic and hysteria on the ground. And again we come back to the point that it took them 7 months and the complete destruction of the country to help this "popular uprising".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

No, you are going all uncooperative tom on me. You are inventing rubbish.

I observed "A hostile population was not one of his problems.", and you start crapping on about PR. There was lots of international press support for the assault upon Libya, but precious little evidence for their panic and hysteria on the ground. And again we come back to the point that it took them 7 months and the complete destruction of the country to help this "popular uprising".

 No, I cited the story of the protests in Tripoli which he put down violently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 No, I cited the story of the protests in Tripoli which he put down violently. 

We put a stop to that. And by "we" I mean the Unitary Exec.

But if they're better off for our efforts, why do they still need bombing this year?

Share this post


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

We put a stop to that. And by "we" I mean the Unitary Exec.

But if they're better off for our efforts, why do they still need bombing this year?

   We put a stop to what?  The protests Battlecheese says never happened? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 No, I cited the story of the protests in Tripoli which he put down violently. 

Were these protesters who got shot at a bunch of guys waving guns in the back of a truck as shown earlier in the video?

Even Al-J (which was heavily supporting this conflict) admits in the video that the information it is reporting is unverifiable.

Share this post


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

   We put a stop to what?  The protests Battlecheese says never happened? 

I said he wasn't being overthrown. A few of the CIA's terrorists getting treated appropriately does not a revolution make.

Share this post


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

   We put a stop to what?  The protests Battlecheese says never happened? 

I was responding to you, not him.

So I was responding to this:

Quote

the protests in Tripoli which he put down violently.

I'm not Battlecheese, thank goodness, and don't care whether he agrees with you.

I'm asking your opinion on whether our helping the French to stop him has worked out well, and if so, why has it been necessary to bomb them a couple of times this year?

Share this post


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

I said he wasn't being overthrown. A few of the CIA's terrorists getting treated appropriately does not a revolution make.

 

11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I was responding to you, not him.

So I was responding to this:

I'm not Battlecheese, thank goodness, and don't care whether he agrees with you.

I'm asking your opinion on whether our helping the French to stop him has worked out well, and if so, why has it been necessary to bomb them a couple of times this year?

 Assuming everything would've been hunky-dory if we had let him put down the rebellion in Benghazi makes that easy alternative history. Another way to look at that might be to quote the great Zhou Enlai : When Kissenger was BSing with him one day he asked what he thought the French Revolution had been a success. Zhou replied "It's too early to tell." 

 I'm limiting myself to correcting false narratives about the incident in Libya for that reason and, BC stated Gad-Daffy had no domestic unrest and that is flat wrong. Counterfactual history is a good exercise but it must include at least some real history to make it so. How can anything be learned from the Libya situation by pretending there wasn't preexisting civil unrest, I have no idea.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How anything can be learned by pretending that de-regiming a place without a plan to re-regime it was a good idea is beyond me. At least Obama seems to have learned that lesson even if you did not.

Share this post


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

How anything can be learned by pretending that de-regiming a place without a plan to re-regime it was a good idea is beyond me. At least Obama seems to have learned that lesson even if you did not.

 I hadn't figured you to be a nation builder. I think what the Obama adminstration didn't do was fall into that trap like Bush did. The notion that after you help somebody out you are responsible for everything that happens there afterwards is a weird concept. How does that work in the scenario of looking out the window and seeing you neighbor beating his wife in the back yard? Stopping it isn't going to fix the marriage or end all wife beating, so you should do nothing, I guess. 

 An interesting full circle in this stuff was experienced by Colin Powell, btw. Back in the day when he was one of our top generals he used to spread a story about what Madeline Albright once said to him: "General, what good is a military if we never use it?" Of course on the surface the question seems horrifying and she took a lot of flack. Then came the day when it was his turn to be calling diplomatic shots and what did he have all ready to go in Haiti? The fucking fleet, and then he assured the current leader there some really big shit was going to go down unless he stepped aside. 

 I imagine Madeline had some fun with that.

Share this post


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

I hadn't figured you to be a nation builder. I think what the Obama adminstration didn't do was fall into that trap like Bush did.

Well, you figured correctly, I'm not.

Obama fell into a separate trap: de-regime a place without any plan and you wind up with what the NY Times described as a "failed state and terrorist haven" IIRC. It's been a while but I guess it hasn't gotten better since the Duopoly bombed them this year.

That's why meddling is a bad idea. It's bad for reasons Bush discovered if you plan to nation build and bad for reasons Obama discovered if you plan to just nation wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This landed in a thread about mindlessly bashing Trump but is really more relevant to this one:

3 hours ago, By the lee said:

In other (more important than a few white devils murdered for their complicity in evil) news....

Guardian: Migrants from west Africa being ‘sold in Libyan slave markets’

Looks like de-regiming the place wasn't such a great idea after all, even if the French really, really wanted to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever happened to that Olsonist guy?
I think a pic of dead Moammar might make me feel like our policies are ok. We came, we saw, he died, problem solved! (Except for the failed state/terrorist haven/slave hub thing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 4:50 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

This landed in a thread about mindlessly bashing Trump but is really more relevant to this one:

Looks like de-regiming the place wasn't such a great idea after all, even if the French really, really wanted to do it.

No nation that has had black people sold as chattel in it has ever amounted to a hill of beans.

  

Share this post


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

No nation that has had black people sold as chattel in it has ever amounted to a hill of beans.

No nation that we've de-regimed or re-regimed in my lifetime has amounted to a hill of beans either. Maybe meddling and slavery are bad?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2017 at 1:26 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

No nation that we've de-regimed or re-regimed in my lifetime has amounted to a hill of beans either. Maybe meddling and slavery are bad?

Egypt produces a yuuuge hill of chick peas every year. I think it's the second best bean in the world, second only to frijoles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 1:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

This landed in a thread about mindlessly bashing Trump but is really more relevant to this one:

Looks like de-regiming the place wasn't such a great idea after all, even if the French really, really wanted to do it.

Looks bad. 

 

The Libyans should be given money to build a bridge to Sicily .  

This would ensue a smooth, trouble free migration experience for the 100 million that are  presently on thier way to europe.   Perhaps even throw in free wifi and some tasty snacks.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/5/2017 at 3:00 AM, slug zitski said:

Looks bad. 

 

The Libyans should be given money to build a bridge to Sicily .  

This would ensue a smooth, trouble free migration experience for the 100 million that are  presently on thier way to europe.   Perhaps even throw in free wifi and some tasty snacks.....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-refugee-boats-stop-migrant-crisis-libya-drowning-mediterranean-report-refugees-international-a7766531.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Yup.....100 million, bags packet,  ready to sprint across  into europe.  

The lesson to learn is never  let population  growth exceed economic growth .

 

IMG_7202.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frenchie said:

"Hell on Earth" compliments on US foriegn policy. Thanks Obama for eight years of continued the little bush policy. You can put that in the bank! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites