Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

 

Do we need to photoshop in a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner?

Or is it just obvious? Or does the NY Times article make that case? Failed state and terrorism haven accomplished.

Olson also has an excellent "mission accomplished" Lybian dead babies and children whacked by "coalition" bombs collection. Hehe, along with some hilarious rape footage. Funny like hell. 

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
6 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
On 3/15/2011 at 7:16 AM, 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.

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

  • Like 1

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
On 1/9/2019 at 7:46 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Somalia for much of the last three decades,

Black hawk down!

The USG needs to maintain a military presence in Somalia.

The mission in Somalia is worth every penny of deficit spending.

The Federal Reserve stands ready. :ph34r:

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
19 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

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

Yeah, so popular - his own people had mass demonstrations and started a civil war to show just how popular he really was.  

564921.bin?w968

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
15 hours ago, Saorsa said:

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

Bazinga!

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this