War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)

[lil mike]

Maybe you could take little breaks from the two or three of you who are entertained in some way by these semantic mazes. That is intended in a vibe of jest and not presuming to say that 'you're doing it wrong'.

I'm fascinated when I hear that I was in agreement with Mike on something, in this case, Iraq was an un called for war. Mike seems to also agree with me on the you break it you bought it scenario. I imagine the fork in the road would come where I say that 'buying it' has become way too common of a circular logic justification for war without end.

Since at least Roman times, it's been shown over and over again that the few with power encourage armed conflicts constructed by psychotics in control in order to justify military complex etc...It's the exact same thing that Washington and Eisenhower among others tried to warn people about. It's not something that gives me comfort to believe or makes sense of things or an indication that I'm a paranoid with a bomb shelter living off the grid and eating crickets. It's factually based history but you can't let the main stream on anything guide you since it's all connected to marketing. I'm not suggesting that everything that the main stream say's are lies or fabrications but that a well rounded person with common sense should no better than to give Meet The Press or Hannity etc...anything more than a quick monitoring. Of course if you agree with the neocon agenda of the US doing no wrong and being the superman of the world then you would buy everything the main stream sells since they never question the agenda of the crumbling empire which has already reached developing nation status on such things infant mortality and people lacking medical care.

Well don't get me wrong.  I did think Saddam was an international criminal running a rogue regime that was a danger to the world community.  In my opinion he had proven that in invading and annexing Kuwait.

I also felt that on paper he had committed mulitple acts of war against the US.  But at the time, I just didn't feel it rose to the level of invasion.  That's a vague gut feeling standard I'll admit.  But I felt we had bigger fish to fry at the time.  What I didn't know at the time was the curveball like info being feed to the Bush administration to make them think he wasn't just an international outlaw, but an iminent danger to the US.

[lil mike]

Just a round up of some stories from the region.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/libya-escalation-inevitable-5259

Libya Escalation Inevitable


There are four courses of action that have a much greater potential to resolve the stalemate in Libya than our current indifference:

Invade and occupy Tripoli.

Offensive air strikes.

Deploy NATO ground forces as peacekeepers

Arm, train, and organize the Libyan rebels


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-libya-20110506,0,5037167.story

No exit
An inconclusive slog in Libya.


The problem is that the U.S. and its allies don't have interests important enough to justify a full-scale effort to defeat Gadhafi but are in too deep to simply walk away. It may be that we can't win at a reasonable cost and can't afford to lose — leaving us with the unsatisfying task of prolonging the conflict without resolving it.

The U.S. and its allies can hope for a lucky break that will bring Gadhafi's government to its knees. But hope is not a strategy.



And of course good old Syria, slaughtering away...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrians-defy-crackdown-stage-widespread-protests/2011/05/06/AFH8DB8F_story.html

Syria sends tanks to coastal town as protests spread


Most notable to me is the way this understated paragraph is just sort of lodged into the story..

On Friday, Syrian troops used heavy machine guns and artillery to quell anti-government protests in the key city of Homs, as tens of thousands of Syrians yet again braved the threat of bullets and tanks to take to the streets around the country.



Doesn't that seems like it's a bigger part of the story?  eh...

and of course this...

The clashes in Homs came amid further signs that Syrians have not been cowed by the hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests carried out in recent weeks in an effort to suppress the biggest challenge to the regime headed by al-Assad since his father brutally suppressed an armed revolt in 1982.

That crackdown, in which as many as 40,000 people died, earned the Syrian regime a reputation as one of the most repressive in the Middle East, and when revolts began rippling around the region earlier in the year, many predicted that Syrians would not dare join the swelling clamor for change.

[ekg]

Uh… that was quoted from Jukebox Guy.  Is his head in a partisan feedbag, or did you quote it by accident thinking I said it, and therefore it just sounded to you like a “partisan feed bag?”

See?  Fairly conclusive proof that if you think I say something, your mental filter tells you it’s a Republican talking point.  Welcome to the Republican Party JBG!

all I have time for right now..


RIF..

Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet? Like it's been explained to you already,


>here comes that explanation, in the quote taken from JBG<

Quote
There is no overall marching plan.  There hasn't been for decades.  We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already.. Roll Eyes

[lil mike]

all I have time for right now..


RIF..

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already.. Roll Eyes

That explanation might have been believable if you had actually quoted JBG, instead if entering the quote anonymously.

That merely makes it look suspicious.


Say, what would you like to see happen in Libya? 

[ekg]

That explanation might have been believable if you had actually quoted JBG, instead if entering the quote anonymously.

That merely makes it look suspicious.

You're joking right?

or just drunk?

I had referred you to his quote twice before..


1st time

I think the article I gave and JBG's reply is pretty easy to understand,

2nd time

I don't think I'm hiding anything from you or dodging any question, I just can't explain it any better than it's already been explained to you by me,cnn,and JBG..

on the 3rd time, if you didn't know by now what he had said, then that's on you.. I knew what he said.. and I knew I was referring to him again, since I said AGAIN...it's already been explained to you

Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet?  Like it's been explained to you already,


>here comes that explanation from jbg that I've referred you to twice before<

There is no overall marching plan.  There hasn't been for decades.  We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..

but instead of admitting you  got it wrong and that you attributed things towards me that are false... to save your own face.... You make it out that I'm unbelievable and suspicious..?

You would really cast dispersions upon an innocent person just because you made an error in reading?

well hell and here my mom taught me 'Oops, sorry" was the right way... clearly your way to blame and impeach those around you to take away from your errors..


such a sweet guy you are..

No Mike, it's your filter that is fucked up..not mine. You erred here, were corrected, and instead of manning up, you turn it into I'm the suspicious one..


RE

Say, what would you like to see happen in Libya?

right..Like that's gonna  happen.

[lil mike]

You're joking right?

or just drunk?

I had referred you to his quote twice before..


1st time

2nd time



on the 3rd time, if you didn't know by now what he had said, then that's on you.. I knew what he said.. and I knew I was referring to him again, since I said AGAIN...it's already been explained to you

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..





but instead of admitting you  got it wrong and that you attributed things towards me that are false... to save your own face.... You make it out that I'm unbelievable and suspicious..?

You would really cast dispersions upon an innocent person just because you made an error in reading?

well hell and here my mom taught me 'Oops, sorry" was the right way... clearly your way to blame and impeach those around you to take away from your errors..


such a sweet guy you are..

No Mike, it's your filter that is fucked up..not mine. You erred here, were corrected, and instead of manning up, you turn it into I'm the suspicious one..


 

Your 1st time, not the quote I was referring to.

Your 2nd time, not the quote I was referring to.

Your 3rd time, THAT is the quote I’m referring to, and you posted unattributed to JBG even though he wrote it.

And of course it has nothing to do with anything I asked about.

I don’t know how much simpler it can get.
And THAT is what you chose to respond to?

Not, me asking how extending a civil war creates” oil stability?”  Or any of the other questions that I asked that were about the issues?

right..Like that's gonna  happen.

So you refuse to answer what should be a very simple question, “What would you like to see happen in Libya?”

Really?  That’s too tough?  Or do you think it’s some sort of sneaky partisan trick of mine?

It’s OK.  I’m starting to get it.  You don’t have a policy reason, merely a partisan response.  You know, there was a time when you could actually debate an issue on it’s own merits.  Remember that?

Good times…

I’m sorry I wasted any time on this issue hoping you actually could make a good policy defense of it.  You can't, and worse, you don't even realize it.   

[ekg]

Your 1st time, not the quote I was referring to.

Your 2nd time, not the quote I was referring to.

Your 3rd time, THAT is the quote I’m referring to, and you posted unattributed to JBG even though he wrote it.

And of course it has nothing to do with anything I asked about.

I don’t know how much simpler it can get.
And THAT is what you chose to respond to?

Not, me asking how extending a civil war creates” oil stability?”  Or any of the other questions that I asked that were about the issues?

So you refuse to answer what should be a very simple question, “What would you like to see happen in Libya?”

Really?  That’s too tough?  Or do you think it’s some sort of sneaky partisan trick of mine?

It’s OK.  I’m starting to get it.  You don’t have a policy reason, merely a partisan response.  You know, there was a time when you could actually debate an issue on it’s own merits.  Remember that?

Good times…

I’m sorry I wasted any time on this issue hoping you actually could make a good policy defense of it.  You can't, and worse, you don't even realize it.   

there is no need to waste my time explaining anything to you Mike.. when you misread something, and then make a stupid judgement call on what you've missed read, you simply don't have the character traits in you to admit you had made an error in your reading. Instead you accuse me of lying, being unbelievable, and suspicious.. you moved on from saying these things about Howie, and are now saying them about me again.

You can re-read the entire thread how it went in real time, it's clear that I had used JBG's quote on 2 other occasions, and in the 3rd, yes the one you question, I just copied it.. big deal, you misunderstood, not me....  But you threw out some insults because you misread somethin and  instead of calling those insults back, you throw more in the hopes no one noticed your error.

they noticed

while it's very nice to have an opposing view to talk to and exchange ideas on policies and other topics... you're not a rational opposing view anymore than EE is a rational opposing view on religion.

You have been told by 2 entirely separate webboards, by people on the left, on the right and those who live up your ass that you have changed in the last few months into an intolerable prick...  I don't know what your malfunction is, but please consider that source and fix it instead of making an ass out of yourself in two communities who only have a sliver of respect left for you.

[Howey]

while it's very nice to have an opposing view to talk to and exchange ideas on policies and other topics...

Precisely why I value Mike's presence on this forum and why I want Shannon to participate more. Although I'm confident Shannon could do it in a far more intelligent and adult manner.

You have been told by 2 entirely separate webboards, by people on the left, on the right and those who live up your ass that you have changed in the last few months into an intolerable prick...  I don't know what your malfunction is, but please consider that source and fix it instead of making an ass out of yourself in two communities who only have a sliver of respect left for you.

Amen...

As I've stated innumerable times, my intent with this forum is that it not end up like the muche...with the owner insulting and berating members he doesn't agree with and with participants going all Kazz-bot over nothing while also berating and insulting their fellow posters. This forum, like the muche, has unfortunately developed into not a discussion of the issues, but a discussion of the minutae.

On one hand, we have lilMike bombarding discussions with needless picking away at moot points and continued disrespect for his fellow posters. On another hand we have FaFa bombarding discussions with needless conspiracy insanity; both with the intention of directing the conversation away from the civil and intelligent and into the realm of idiocy.

My experience those years on the muche developed into a constant defense of my words and thoughts. To the point the issue became inconsequential. Faced with attacks, including the personal, I fought harder and made a fool of myself in the process; thus realizing the goal of those who berated me.

I will not allow this to happen here.

When I set up this forum, I asked that we police ourselves. That has failed. Effective today, any post of lilMike's that delves into the personal attack and any post from FaFa that introduces a silly conspiracy-related comment into a topic will be moved to a special section of the board; the Children's Playground.

Don't like it? Fine. Leave. You can go here. At least I didn't ban anyone and still have my integrity.

[lil mike]

there is no need to waste my time explaining anything to you Mike.. when you misread something, and then make a stupid judgement call on what you've missed read, you simply don't have the character traits in you to admit you had made an error in your reading. Instead you accuse me of lying, being unbelievable, and suspicious.. you moved on from saying these things about Howie, and are now saying them about me again.

You can re-read the entire thread how it went in real time, it's clear that I had used JBG's quote on 2 other occasions, and in the 3rd, yes the one you question, I just copied it.. big deal, you misunderstood, not me....  But you threw out some insults because you misread somethin and  instead of calling those insults back, you throw more in the hopes no one noticed your error.

they noticed

while it's very nice to have an opposing view to talk to and exchange ideas on policies and other topics... you're not a rational opposing view anymore than EE is a rational opposing view on religion.

You have been told by 2 entirely separate webboards, by people on the left, on the right and those who live up your ass that you have changed in the last few months into an intolerable prick...  I don't know what your malfunction is, but please consider that source and fix it instead of making an ass out of yourself in two communities who only have a sliver of respect left for you.

I've tried with little success to get you discuss actual issues and policy, but you steer clear like a vampire from garlic.  It's all a partisan game with you.  This thread is a good example. 

[lil mike]

Precisely why I value Mike's presence on this forum and why I want Shannon to participate more. Although I'm confident Shannon could do it in a far more intelligent and adult manner.

Amen...

As I've stated innumerable times, my intent with this forum is that it not end up like the muche...with the owner insulting and berating members he doesn't agree with and with participants going all Kazz-bot over nothing while also berating and insulting their fellow posters. This forum, like the muche, has unfortunately developed into not a discussion of the issues, but a discussion of the minutae.

On one hand, we have lilMike bombarding discussions with needless picking away at moot points and continued disrespect for his fellow posters. On another hand we have FaFa bombarding discussions with needless conspiracy insanity; both with the intention of directing the conversation away from the civil and intelligent and into the realm of idiocy.

My experience those years on the muche developed into a constant defense of my words and thoughts. To the point the issue became inconsequential. Faced with attacks, including the personal, I fought harder and made a fool of myself in the process; thus realizing the goal of those who berated me.

I will not allow this to happen here.

When I set up this forum, I asked that we police ourselves. That has failed. Effective today, any post of lilMike's that delves into the personal attack and any post from FaFa that introduces a silly conspiracy-related comment into a topic will be moved to a special section of the board; the Children's Playground.

Don't like it? Fine. Leave. You can go here. At least I didn't ban anyone and still have my integrity.

I've asked you to point out where you feel I've violated the terms of service.  I'm serious in wanting to be sure I'm playing fair.  But I've no interest in generalities. If I've posted something specifically that is a violation, let me know.

[ekg]

Maybe you could take little breaks from the two or three of you who are entertained in some way by these semantic mazes. That is intended in a vibe of jest and not presuming to say that 'you're doing it wrong'.

I'm fascinated when I hear that I was in agreement with Mike on something, in this case, Iraq was an un called for war. Mike seems to also agree with me on the you break it you bought it scenario.

may I ask, what ever gave you those ideas?

I ask about iraq since he's spent the last 8 or so years defending the Bush reasons for war or giving changing reasons as they came up and defending each and every aspect of the war itself..So much so that I can't understand how you could have the idea that he would think it was 'uncalled for'..

[FooFa]

may I ask, what ever gave you those ideas?

I ask about iraq since he's spent the last 8 or so years defending the Bush reasons for war or giving changing reasons as they came up and defending each and every aspect of the war itself..So much so that I can't understand how you could have the idea that he would think it was 'uncalled for'..

It was a poor interpolation. After all his qualifications on it he still said that he didn't think we should have gone in. Or I could have sworn that's what I saw. For me to equate that with my stance on it being uncalled for was in error.

[ekg]

It was a poor interpolation. After all his qualifications on it he still said that he didn't think we should have gone in. Or I could have sworn that's what I saw. For me to equate that with my stance on it being uncalled for was in error.

ok..

you're not in trouble or anything.. LOL

I was just curious..

I re-read what he said and he did say

As you already knew, and re-posted yet again, I opposed the invasion of Iraq,

but after 8 years of defense, I don't think I could say he opposed it or felt it was uncalled for.. I was just wondering what you saw that gave you that idea,  that's all..