Sign in to follow this  
Guest

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

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

I wasn't sure whether to put this one in this thread or the Niger one. It's ironic either place.

On 12/6/2017 at 9:01 PM, Lark said:
On 12/6/2017 at 8:49 PM, Mickey Rat said:

Please defend the Democrat party! Let's here it. I'll get the popcorn ready. :D 

  • ...
  • They haven’t gotten us into a war in generations (though Hilliary might have tried, she wouldn’t have resorted to grade school taunts)

"We came, we saw, he died."

Problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 8:00 PM, Mickey Rat 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! 

I think that I would point a lot the blame at the Muslim Brotherhood.  This is not a new problem.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I wasn't sure whether to put this one in this thread or the Niger one. It's ironic either place.

"We came, we saw, he died."

Problem solved!

Does that mean we’ll actually win a war?   Even more unlikely, will we actually bring an army home or downsize it as no longer needed?   We occupy the world while problems fester at home, but nobody pays us tribute,   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lark said:

Does that mean we’ll actually win a war?   Even more unlikely, will we actually bring an army home or downsize it as no longer needed?   We occupy the world while problems fester at home, but nobody pays us tribute,   

The outcome of the Libyan war is like the outcome of the Korean war: still pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former French president Sarkozy in police custody

Quote

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been placed in custody as part of an investigation that he received millions of euros in illegal financing from the regime of the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, according to a judicial source.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/03/20/19/11/nicolas-sarkozy-former-french-president-in-police-custody-over-libya-cash-from-gadhafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mid said:
Quote

Sarkozy had a complex relationship with Gadhafi. Soon after becoming the French president, Sarkozy invited the Libyan leader to France for a state visit and welcomed him with high honors. But Sarkozy then put France in the forefront of NATO-led airstrikes against Gadhafi's troops that helped rebel fighters topple his regime in 2011.

That's complex all right.

But the nation-building project he championed goes on...

 

Quote

 

What Type Of Government Does Libya Have?

Currently, the Libya is in an uncertain state due to an ongoing civil war and the collapse of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2011.


 

Oh well, maybe it'll go right some day. What difference does it make anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hillary by comparison was fiercely patriotic and effective.


Hmm... This comment seems funnier in this thread, where we can talk about her achievement.

 

On 3/15/2016 at 5:43 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Can we get a pic of Moammar's head please, Olsonist? It seems to indicate a "mission accomplished" type of message.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a couple of Russian bases are being opened in Benghazi and Tobruk.

This guy will need to give himself more medals to catch up.

NINTCHDBPICT000404205335.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2011 at 5:42 AM, mad said:

Agreed, they need to stand on their own feet no matter how bad it gets. Everytime there is outside intervention it undermines any new regime that takes over. First accusation will always be that the new regime is a "poodle" of which ever country/ies that got involved.

 

Lets be honest we haven't really helped a lot anywhere that we have intervened.

Vintage wisdom.

On 3/14/2011 at 7:16 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Not helping in Libya will destroy what little goodwill we might have or ever have with the arab street.

This needs updating to reflect the current de-regiming project.

Not helping in Syria will destroy what little goodwill we might have or ever have with the arab street.

Well, it needed a new font too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I was wrong about Libya. At least I admit we should have stayed the fuck out likewe should stay the fuck out of Syria. 

In order to stay out, we'll need to first get out.

That's why I support Trumps withdrawal orders in Syria and Afghanistan. Still waiting on the Niger one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2011 at 3:08 AM, dogballs Tom said:

 

Clinton stated that Saddam must go, as we have been reminded many times.

 

Fast forward some years, and when the nation building is going badly in Libya under some Republican, and this quote will be fun.

5 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Given your very low profile during these ancient discussions on Syria and Libya, those of us who were actually taking a position at the time do not appreciate this jonny-come-lately attempt to claim the moral high ground.

Oh. OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2011 at 9:35 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I think the chance of AQ or mujahideen popping up in Libya are slim to none. From what I hear it is not a terribly fundamentalist Muslim country and Qadaffi himself ws trying to blame the uprisings n AQ as a way to turn public sentiment against the protesters. AQ is a boogyman there as much as it is here, apparently.

*cough* There are some gems hidden away in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Battlecheese said:

*cough* There are some gems hidden away in here.

Indeed, including posts from me that you seem to have missed. Are you ready to correct your statement above or do you stand by it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Indeed, including posts from me that you seem to have missed. Are you ready to correct your statement above or do you stand by it?

I did not make a statement above. You are masturbating over a whole bunch of threads. I have replied to your original one.

Share this post


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

I did not make a statement above. You are masturbating over a whole bunch of threads. I have replied to your original one.

If I moved my old posts to that thread, that would be wrong.

Moving your current post to an old thead? Also wrong.

Is there an acceptable way to reference old posts and prove you wrong?

Share this post


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

I was wrong about Libya. At least I admit we should have stayed the fuck out likewe should stay the fuck out of Syria. 

Here's a pro tip: if there's an American military intervention and you don't wish to look like an ass years down the road, it's probably best to oppose it.

Is there an exception to this rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somalia, maybe.

But probably not.
 

Quote

 

The United States has maintained some degree of military presence inside Somalia for much of the last three decades, but a pattern of escalation that began late in former President Barack Obama's second term has markedly accelerated in the two years since President Donald Trump took office. Airstrikes are on the rise; hundreds of U.S. boots are on the ground; and Trump's March 2017 decision to designate portions of Somalia as "areas of active hostility" means military operations can proceed with less oversight and greater tolerance for civilian casualties.

Somalia is thus, for all intents and purposes, another addition to Washington's roster of undeclared, undebated, and unnecessary wars of uncertain connection to U.S. security—and a Friday report from NBC News suggested Trump had finally come to see it that way. Citing multiple unnamed senior officials, NBC reported the administration would scale down the American military intervention in Somalia, "narrowing" the mission and shifting responsibility to local actors like the African Union and the Somali government.

 

That would be nice, but I'm looking skyward for falling blobs.
 

Quote

 

Trump's presidency, however, has generally continued the same interventionist policies of the last two administrations. His promises of peace, always inconsistent, have been smothered by the foreign policy establishment "blob."

But the last month has seem some glimmer of candidate Trump return: He announced a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, pledging American soldiers there would be home with their families soon. He reportedly ordered the Pentagon to make plans for withdrawing half of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. And on a surprise visit with U.S. forces in Iraq right after Christmas, Trump returned to his campaign-era talk of ending needless interventions. "The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world," he said. "We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."

This impulse toward restraint, sadly, may be short-lived, as Trump's framing of the Syria plan has already shifted. He started speaking of a "slow" exit, after which National Security Advisor John Bolton announced the withdrawal would not happen at all absent an unlikely guarantee from Turkey. Meanwhile, other administration officials revealed that if any troops do leave Syria, many will simply be redeployed to neighboring Iraq, not sent home as Trump had pledged.

It is not hard to surmise what happened here: Trump wanted U.S. troops to leave Syria; Bolton and other reflexively pro-war members of his advisory team—as well as most of "permanent Washington"—did not. Trump made the initial announcement, but the subsequent implementation, handled by Bolton and his allies, has endangered, if not outright killed, the withdrawal plan. One could be excused for wondering exactly how much Trump controls his own administration's policy.

 

JBolton_Walrus.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still fixing Somalia
 

Quote

 

Last weekend, the U.S. military killed what they reported as 52 militants from Somalia's al-Shabab.

...

There's nothing ambiguous about the terribleness of al-Shabab. However, experts at the Council of Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies attribute their more aggressive rebirth to Ethiopia's 2006 invasion of the country, which raised the terrorist group's numbers from hundreds to what is now reportedly nearing 7,000. The Somali government and the UN Security Council-backed African Union Mission in Africa have been fighting al-Shabab since 2007. Fighting them is an understandable goal, but these recent acts of violence smell like blowback and could be a teachable moment if anyone wanted to learn.

Trump's desire to kill the families of terrorists, which, if done deliberately, would likely be a violation of the Geneva Convention, was memorable, but still doesn't have the reputation of a bomb-dropping kind of guy. In part because he likes to keep enemies guessing, but also because of policy in-fighting and indecision.

Realistically, however, Barack Obama's inclination toward tying his own hands in his final years in office came after he became notorious for pioneering a drone assassination program that he refused to admit existed for years. By the time he was a lame duck, and therefore suddenly aware that someone else was going to take the reins of death soon, he decided to take control over drone strikes away from the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon. He also issued a 2016 executive order to try and catalog civilian death from drones.

Not only were Obama's lame duck attacks to clean up his own mess generally infuriating––since he set the world's precedent for drone warfare and all––but the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies under Obama were not exactly trustworthy in their civilian casualty counting skills either.

Officially, any male of military age killed in a strike counted as a terrorist until proven otherwise. Males who survive an attack are assumed to be terrorist sympathizers. Fundamentally, there has never been a reason to trust that the U.S. will tell––or even knows, or wants to know––how many civilians it kills. Yes, terrorists and locals have an incentive to claim excessive death tolls, but equally, estimates offered by the U.S. government, such as nearly 1,000 innocent people killed in three years of fighting the Islamic State (IS), will be extremely low. The nonprofit Airwars, which tracks deaths in Libya, Syria, and Iraq, frequently estimates five to six times greater numbers of civilian deaths than official U.S. accounts suggest.

Perhaps all 52 militants killed in Somalia were as bad as could be, and nobody innocent suffered. Maybe that's true, but there's hardly enough evidence to prove that the U.S. will treat gatherings of people, or cars moving towards an area deemed suspicious, or even people's homes as legitimate targets.

But again, why is the U.S. involved at all?

 

It's a good question. I guess the answer is that we're still scouring the globe for those elusive 9-11 terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:
1 hour ago, Contumacious Tom said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I did caveat it with “benign”. Which is rare oxymoronic, and a few other kinds of moronic.

Fixed, unless you have an example.

I’m sure with enough digging I could come up with a brief period where it happened. Maybe a few weeks or so. 

Qaddafi was pretty damn popular within his country.


OK, I'll bite. Are you saying his was a "benign authoritarian" regime?

Our "Smart Power" de-regiming effort was all kinds of moronic and that is too. And oxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:


OK, I'll bite. Are you saying his was a "benign authoritarian" regime?

Our "Smart Power" de-regiming effort was all kinds of moronic and that is too. And oxy.

Well, you were asking for an example of a benign authoritarian government, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to clarify here.

He didn't get a lot of good press in the west, but he was v popular at home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

Quote

The Daily Times of Nigeria for instance stated that while undeniably a dictator, Gaddafi was the most benevolent in a region that only knew dictatorship, and that he was "a great man that looked out for his people and made them the envy of all of Africa."[468] The Nigerian newspaper Leadership reported that while many Libyans and Africans would mourn Gaddafi, this would be ignored by Western media and that as such it would take 50 years before historians decided whether he was "martyr or villain."[469]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 12:49 AM, Battlecheese said:
On 2/25/2019 at 10:30 PM, Mark K said:

The issue wasn't that he had some supporters, it was what was he saying he was going to do once he got to Benghazi...in light of what he had done in the past.  

You are able to look at what those people have done in the intervening years and don't think it may actually have been a good idea?

Seems to me like they were, in fact, just terrorists.


What he did in the past is kinda noteworthy

Quote

It's worth pointing out that in 2006, the United States restored full diplomatic relations with Libya and Gaddafi. After a series of American reprisals, Gaddafi had stopped sponsoring terrorism, dismantled his nuclear program, expelled Al Qaeda, paid reparations for Flight 103, and actively cooperated with U.S. intelligence. He remained a tyrant at home, but he did what America asked him to do internationally. Given all that, U.S. participation in the NATO operation that took him down sent a message to dictators that the United States is at best a fickle power (something similar can be said about the U.S. relationship with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak).

No, wait, further in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:


What he did in the past is kinda noteworthy

No, wait, further in the past.

Does that mean the French and the Brits must ignore his threats vis a vis Benghazi?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 3:08 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I was wrong about Libya. At least I admit we should have stayed the fuck out likewe should stay the fuck out of Syria. 

 I don't feel that way. We don't know what would have gone down had we left it up to the underequipped Brits and French, yet we now seem convinced it would have all worked out hunky dory. Gad-daffy pulled a Tony Soprano, he got all worked up while fucking with the wrong people. Had that old guy just abdicated he'd probably would be joyfully jerking off to pics of Condi in his Italian villa today.

   Sometimes there are no good answers, and somehow everybody thinks everything we stick our dick in for a bit we are responsible for whatever happens to it thereafter. The non-interventionists use the same flawed logic as the interventionists do. 

Share this post


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

Does that mean the French and the Brits must ignore his threats vis a vis Benghazi?? 

They can do what they want.

Does what they want determine our national security interests?

4 hours ago, Mark K said:

We don't know what would have gone down had we left it up to the underequipped Brits and French, yet we now seem convinced it would have all worked out hunky dory.

Or at least convinced that it could not have gone worse than the "smart power" that led to the current failed state and terrorism haven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 I don't feel that way. We don't know what would have gone down had we left it up to the underequipped Brits and French, yet we now seem convinced it would have all worked out hunky dory.

The brits and french were never going to do it alone.

They took the lead on PR, because they knew they had no hope at all of selling more american adventurism to their public so soon after the Iraq bullshit. 

In my opinion it was even more crass and obvious than the Iraq lies. Maybe that's what annoyed me most at the time. 

Share this post


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

In my opinion it was even more crass and obvious than the Iraq lies. Maybe that's what annoyed me most at the time. 

Hmm...

Given your very low profile during these ancient discussions on Syria and Libya, those of us who were actually taking a position at the time do not appreciate this jonny-come-lately attempt to claim the moral high ground.

Share this post


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

 I don't feel that way. We don't know what would have gone down had we left it up to the underequipped Brits and French, yet we now seem convinced it would have all worked out hunky dory. Gad-daffy pulled a Tony Soprano, he got all worked up while fucking with the wrong people. Had that old guy just abdicated he'd probably would be joyfully jerking off to pics of Condi in his Italian villa today.

   Sometimes there are no good answers, and somehow everybody thinks everything we stick our dick in for a bit we are responsible for whatever happens to it thereafter. The non-interventionists use the same flawed logic as the interventionists do. 

Britain and France are part of NATO.  Why would they underequipped to deal with a pissant like Libya?

Share this post


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

Hmm...

Given your very low profile during these ancient discussions on Syria and Libya, those of us who were actually taking a position at the time do not appreciate this jonny-come-lately attempt to claim the moral high ground.

No. My posting history is extensive from this time. You have single-figures numbers of posts on the topic before march 2011. And your concern appeared to be largely limited to the financial aspects.

Share this post


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

No. My posting history is extensive from this time. You have single-figures numbers of posts on the topic before march 2011. And your concern appeared to be largely limited to the financial aspects.

I just thought it would be fun to throw out a baseless messenger attack that is disproven by posts still on the board.

It wasn't that fun. Frankly, I don't see what your attraction is to doing it.

Speaking of baseless and contradicted by posts on the forum, my concern from back then on this page seems to have been nation building going badly, nothing financial. Why do you like baseless and false messenger attacks when they're contradicted by evidence on the same page you're posting on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

I just thought it would be fun to throw out a baseless messenger attack that is disproven by posts still on the board.

It wasn't that fun. Frankly, I don't see what your attraction is to doing it.

Speaking of baseless and contradicted by posts on the forum, my concern from back then on this page seems to have been nation building going badly, nothing financial. Why do you like baseless and false messenger attacks when they're contradicted by evidence on the same page you're posting on?

Nation-building is a financial consideration. Your posting was sparse, late, not relating to the core issues being discussed, and not worth considering which is why I didn't remember it.

I just don't care enough about it to argue the toss with you.

Share this post


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

Nation-building is a financial consideration. Your posting was sparse, late, not relating to the core issues being discussed, and not worth considering which is why I didn't remember it.

I just don't care enough about it to argue the toss with you.

No amount of money will make us good at nation building.

I see your position about me has evolved from "didn't take a position" to "away from some core" so you're getting closer to reality.

A real post from me would look like this:

I see that you continue to oppose our senseless interventions, just as I do. But of course that would acknowledge things that have been posted.

 

Share this post


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

No amount of money will make us good at nation building.

I see your position about me has evolved from "didn't take a position" to "away from some core" so you're getting closer to reality.

A real post from me would look like this:

I see that you continue to oppose our senseless interventions, just as I do. But of course that would acknowledge things that have been posted.

In fact, I simply did not recall your contributions (such as they were) to the discussion.

I feel no shame about that. Much like this conversation, you were just whacking off away from the actual topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 7:51 AM, Battlecheese said:

In fact, I simply did not recall your contributions (such as they were) to the discussion.

I feel no shame about that.

If I didn't recall someone agreeing with me and made a false messenger attack saying they did not, I would feel some shame about the false messenger attack part. Like I said, I don't see what you find so fulfilling about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 11:44 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Snuffing Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi after he de nuked was a lesson Kim understands. You think Obama understood the concept of unintended consequences? I don't think he did or cared. 


Interesting observation about Kim.

I don't think that's a fair statement about Obama, who has said that letting Hillary talk him into the Libya thing was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

If I didn't recall someone agreeing with me and made a false messenger attack saying they did not, I would feel some shame about the false messenger attack part. Like I said, I don't see what you find so fulfilling about it.

And this is why it doesn't bother me. When it comes to having an actual discussion you are about 0.05 steps better than Malarky -> not worth worrying about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a new thread on this old topic:

19 hours ago, Rat's ass said:
Quote

 

Dozens of people have been reported killed and scores more injured in clashes on the edge of Libya’s coastal capital Tripoli after warlord Khalifa Haftar ordered his troops to take the city from the U.N.-backed government April 4. The offensive by the military chief Haftar, who has U.S. citizenship, has pushed Libya to the brink of civil war.

The Tripoli based-government announced on April 7 it was launching a counter-offensive it called Operation Volcano of Anger. On April 8, an airstrike the U.N. blamed on Haftar’s self-styled National Libyan Army (NLA) shut down Tripoli’s only functioning airport. The Health Ministry of the Tripoli-based government said at least 27 people, including civilians, have been killed since the offensive began. The media office of Hafter’s army said 22 of their troops had been killed in the same period. The U.N. has called in vain for a truce and international powers have evacuated their personnel.

The escalating violence—audaciously launched during the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ visit to Tripoli—comes less than two weeks before a planned conference aimed at reconciling Libya’s numerous armed factions and paving the way for democratic elections in the country, which has been riven by political instability and violence since the 2011 killing of Muammar Gaddafi.

 

If Haftar wins, would his US citizenship complicate that whole "we came, we saw, he died, the nation descended into prolonged chaos" type of smart power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

From a new thread on this old topic:

If Haftar wins, would his US citizenship complicate that whole "we came, we saw, he died, the nation descended into prolonged chaos" type of smart power?

It hasn't in the past. The swamp has no shame, and it seems the public finds comfort in stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 6:51 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Marco Rubio included the "before" pic.

 

6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, Hillary didn't do this. But she did help. As did Putin, the UN Security Council, NATO, France, England, the EU, Australia, the US of Fucking A. Even Newt Gingrich wanted this until he didn't want it (which was the next day because, you know, Hillary).

image.png.0d4f4ef8e143a692137ff59e45ef04d4.png

He was actually begging for his life when this photo was taken.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-last-words-begged-mercy


Adding the back story to one-up Marco?

Share this post


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

Ok, that explains Britain and France who are well known for always doing exactly whatever it is the US wants. I'll give you those two for free. But it doesn't explain Putin and China. Face it. Gaddafi had zero friends. For. A. Reason.


No friends, but relations. Full ones. Diplomatic ones.

On 2/27/2019 at 3:06 AM, Importunate Tom said:

What he did in the past is kinda noteworthy

Quote

It's worth pointing out that in 2006, the United States restored full diplomatic relations with Libya and Gaddafi. After a series of American reprisals, Gaddafi had stopped sponsoring terrorism, dismantled his nuclear program, expelled Al Qaeda, paid reparations for Flight 103, and actively cooperated with U.S. intelligence. He remained a tyrant at home, but he did what America asked him to do internationally. Given all that, U.S. participation in the NATO operation that took him down sent a message to dictators that the United States is at best a fickle power (something similar can be said about the U.S. relationship with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak).

No, wait, further in the past. 

 

Share this post


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

As for Hillary, yeah I voted for her in the general. I voted for Bernie in the primary. As for her crowing, yep and she deserved to crow. Did you read that part about Gadaffi begging for his life?


That idea really turns you on, doesn't it? Seems to turn on people like Rubio and Graham too.

And people wonder why I say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two halves of the Duopoly on foreign policy.

It's because there isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Sorry, but in recent memory our armed forces have not completed missioens in a way that would justify our expenditures of men, women and material, let alone provide valuable returns in terms of national security.


But Moammar is dead, a yuge triumph!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 4:17 AM, Importunate Tom said:

...    ...     ...

And people wonder why I say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two halves of the Duopoly on foreign policy.

It's because there isn't.

Can you point to when the last time Democrats lied us into a war for their own personal profit? Can you point to the last time Democrats insulted and abused our long-time closest allies?

Same as your other bullshit, sounds great to the empty/closed mind but doesn't stand up to actual facts.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duopoly is Tom-speak for bothsiderism. If you want some real fun, chase down his Fast+Furious threads and remind him who started the gunwalking nonsense. He's less of a bothsider when there's a Democrat in office.

Share this post


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

Duopoly is Tom-speak for bothsiderism. If you want some real fun, chase down his Fast+Furious threads and remind him who started the gunwalking nonsense. He's less of a bothsider when there's a Democrat in office.

Oh, I know.

These Libbur-tayray'uns are just garden-variety Republicans with a stick up their butt from watching too much black-n-white Westerns when they were kids. The main thing is that they like to pretend they don't hate Democrats, a subterfuge Tom refuses to indulge in because YAY GUNZ is far more important to him personally.

The whole Libertarian ethos sounds great as long as you don't have to apply it to the real world. Then you have to start justifying all sorts of flights of fantasy.... it's just pseudo-intellectual masturbation, normally harmless except for the fact that these people actually cast votes based on this nonsense. Makes just as much sense as voting for the candidate Jesus tells you to.

What's amazing is how often the coldly rational Libertarian analysis agrees with Jesus. Seems a bit like too much coincidence........

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Can you point to when the last time Democrats lied us into a war for their own personal profit? Can you point to the last time Democrats insulted and abused our long-time closest allies?

Same as your other bullshit, sounds great to the empty/closed mind but doesn't stand up to actual facts.

- DSK

Why is it relevant if they're making money off it? Is lying to start an unnecessary war somehow OK if the guy in charge makes money on the talking circuit afterwards rather than just getting a cheque at the time?

Share this post


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

Can you point to when the last time Democrats lied us into a war for their own personal profit?     ...      ...     ...

 

Why is it relevant if they're making money off it? Is lying to start an unnecessary war somehow OK if the guy in charge makes money on the talking circuit afterwards rather than just getting a cheque at the time?

In many cases, a small difference, granted

You could look at it from the other direction.... when was the last times Republicans elected a college professor as President? A guy who helps build houses for Habitat?

There is a big difference between the parties; both are coalitions of course.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is a big difference between the parties; both are coalitions of course.

Their enthusiasm about lying in order to go to war is not an area of difference. Even when college professor's are in charge.

Share this post


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

Their enthusiasm about lying in order to go to war is not an area of difference. Even when college professor's are in charge.

The most recent college professor tried to rationalize using drones to help pull back from war.

Not a good route IMHO but different than lying to start a war for one's own personal profit

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It's the Libyans.

Jeff will be along shortly to say that he does too get the joke. Guy will be concerned that he doesn’t get the joke yet optimistic that should the joke be sufficiently improved he would indeed eventually get the joke. Tom, after the joke is explained to him, will argue about the joke over in one of his corporate personhood threads, losing to no one in particular.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

At least it's not the Aristocrats.

They need more space than a VW Bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites