Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Politikal => Political News and Election Coverage => Topic started by: 44nutman on February 21, 2011, 10:33:29 am



Title: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: 44nutman on February 21, 2011, 10:33:29 am
If I was a dictator with over 20 years on the job experience, locted in the middle east, I would be quaking in my boots.

It looks like Gaddafi, is going to fight to the finish. I can understand why, because he really has nowhere to go. His kid said in an interview they are not going to be taken over by the Italians or Turks, which I thought was funny. The Italians and Turks have not been in control of the area since prior to WW 1. I guess he was hoping past hatred would rally the people to come together.

Libya, has some oil, but is traditionally very tribal. I could see the country splitting in two if Gaddifi loses control. The thing that I am most worried about is all these countries being taken over by hard core muslims. A conservative religious government, no matter what religion, is typically not a free society.
200 killed.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/unconfirmed-libya-death-toll-reaches-200-protests-continue-20110220-084232-852.html


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 21, 2011, 10:41:41 am
If I was a dictator with over 20 years on the job experience, locted in the middle east, I would be quaking in my boots.

It looks like Gaddafi, is going to fight to the finish. I can understand why, because he really has nowhere to go.

Sure he's got somewhere to go. He's already left!

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166231.html\\

Quote
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi has left his country for Venezuela or Brazil, as protests calling on him to step down have turned violent, a report says.


Government's crackdown on people to put down the protests against Gaddafi's 41-year rule turned out to be counterproductive as demonstrations continued on Sunday.

The repression became bloodier when security forces opened fire on thousands of people gathered to mourn for those killed on Saturday clashes in Benghazi.

EU and US have condemned the suppression of pro-democracy protesters and expressed concern about "disturbing reports and images coming out of Libya."

The rights group Amnesty International has also urged the Libyan government to stop its crackdown on peaceful demonstrations.

Meanwhile, Libyan envoy to the Arab League Abdel Moneim al-Honi and the country's Ambassador to China Hussein Sadeq Al Misurati, have resigned to join the protests.

Al-Honi has submitted his resignation "in protest against the acts of repression and violence against demonstrators."

Al Misurati told Al Jazeera TV that he was not "honored to represent a regime that kills its people."

An opposition leader has said that all tribes across the country have joined the anti-government protests, reports said.

Latest figures show the death toll from clashes in Libya's massive popular uprising is nearing 300.



Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: 44nutman on February 21, 2011, 10:58:56 am
Sure he's got somewhere to go. He's already left!

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166231.html\\
 


I was listening to Al Jazeera english feed last nite to get some info on Libya.They are usually the most update  source for any news in that area. They say there are conflicting reports if Gaddafi has left or not. They did mention that he has brought in some mercs, due to some in the army are going on to the side of the protestors. I think Libya is going to get really bloody.
 Here is their latest article for the area.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011221133557377576.html

EDIT, posted the wrong link before. Here is the latest from Al Jazeera.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 21, 2011, 11:33:00 am
I was listening to Al Jazeera english feed last nite to get some info on Libya.They are usually the most update  source for any news in that area. They say there are conflicting reports if Gaddafi has left or not. They did mention that he has brought in some mercs, due to some in the army are going on to the side of the protestors. I think Libya is going to get really bloody.
 Here is their latest article for the area.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011221133557377576.html

EDIT, posted the wrong link before. Here is the latest from Al Jazeera.

Yeah...I meant to come back and edit my post too. The only places I could find about Daddy G were what I consider spurrious news sources. So whether he's gone or not isn't known yet.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: lil mike on February 21, 2011, 08:54:00 pm
Yeah...I meant to come back and edit my post too. The only places I could find about Daddy G were what I consider spurrious news sources. So whether he's gone or not isn't known yet.

The country is too locked down to get good information out of there.  But I think Khaddafi thinks if he hits back hard enough, he can put a stop to the rebellion.  He may be right, but there will be a lot of dead people before he's through.  I wish the networks would send some drones over there or something.  Openness is what keeps dictator's guns at bay.  But if you think no one is watching...


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 22, 2011, 10:03:37 am
The country is too locked down to get good information out of there.  But I think Khaddafi thinks if he hits back hard enough, he can put a stop to the rebellion.  He may be right, but there will be a lot of dead people before he's through.  I wish the networks would send some drones over there or something.  Openness is what keeps dictator's guns at bay.  But if you think no one is watching...

Khaddafi may think that, but he's seriously wrong, or crazy. Wait. He is crazy!

There will be bloodshed but he'll be gone within a week, max.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 22, 2011, 10:30:43 am
Wait.

Is it with a "K", "G", or "Q"?


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: 44nutman on February 22, 2011, 07:39:08 pm
Wait.

Is it with a "K", "G", or "Q"?
I have seen it all 3 ways.
 I had the news on in the office and saw his speech. He looks like he should be playing saxaphone for Kool and the Gang. He is fighting to the end and what a bizarre speech, that is if the translator was correct. If I was the translator I would be tempted just to make some crazy stuff up.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 22, 2011, 07:40:44 pm
I have seen it all 3 ways.
 I had the news on in the office and saw his speech. He looks like he should be playing saxaphone for Kool and the Gang. He is fighting to the end and what a bizarre speech, that is if the translator was correct. If I was the translator I would be tempted just to make some crazy stuff up.


If nuts were given crowns, he'd be wearing his with pride.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: lil mike on February 22, 2011, 09:18:31 pm
Khaddafi may think that, but he's seriously wrong, or crazy. Wait. He is crazy!

There will be bloodshed but he'll be gone within a week, max.

Hopefully.  But tyrants have put down rebellions before.  It's not inevitable that the rebellion will succeed.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 23, 2011, 08:24:24 am
Hopefully.  But tyrants have put down rebellions before.  It's not inevitable that the rebellion will succeed.

Did you see how Richard Engel snuck into Libya. Guy's got some ballz. Speaks Arabic too. His reports are compelling.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: lil mike on February 23, 2011, 09:40:12 pm
Did you see how Richard Engel snuck into Libya. Guy's got some ballz. Speaks Arabic too. His reports are compelling.

We have too few arabic speaking reporters who can get stories like he can.  Usually they hire local stringers who are... untrustworthy.


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: ekg on February 23, 2011, 09:51:38 pm
Did you see how Richard Engel snuck into Libya. Guy's got some ballz. Speaks Arabic too. His reports are compelling.

did he really?

Anderson said he wants to go and is trying to find a way in.. he said that right now you can basically just walk in thru Egypt, and he said it with a twinkle is in his eye..

if Engel's there, he'll go next...

he also said it beaucoup dangerous and since he's already had one scrap-up in this mess.. I fear for him if he gets into this mess..


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 24, 2011, 10:30:07 am
did he really?

Anderson said he wants to go and is trying to find a way in.. he said that right now you can basically just walk in thru Egypt, and he said it with a twinkle is in his eye..

if Engel's there, he'll go next...

he also said it beaucoup dangerous and since he's already had one scrap-up in this mess.. I fear for him if he gets into this mess..

lol...jb and I were talking about this this morning over coffee (Engel's my latest dork boyfriend). I was laughing that Anderson was so jealous of Engel he actually  twittered gleefully last night that he's made it into Libya.  :D


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: betteroffhere on February 25, 2011, 10:46:01 pm
hmmm...

you people....are....

sheep....sheep i tell ya...with blinders on....fucking amazing

following the lead of TPTB...eating right out of their hands...

like hungry lil munchkins...waiting for the next game of three card monty

or will it be shells...i luv shell games...maybe the cups and ball

oh look...a magician...no....thats an illusionist...

no...no...a magician really does tricks....an illusionist only performs tricks....


check please....


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on February 26, 2011, 10:00:36 am
hmmm...

you people....are....

sheep....sheep i tell ya...with blinders on....fucking amazing

following the lead of TPTB...eating right out of their hands...

like hungry lil munchkins...

Ummm....yeah.

You, kind sir, seem to be in the wrong place. You seem to be speaking of:

THIS PLACE? (http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=b74cc1f1aceb3041b0495573f9a70f5e&)





Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: FooFa on March 02, 2011, 12:54:56 am
 
RealNews report (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6342)


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: FooFa on March 04, 2011, 06:27:12 pm

Obama issues an executive order blocking transfer or withdrawal of funds by Qaddafi or his children. He also cancelled military contacts with Libya shortly after all US embassy staff flew out of Tripoli  Friday night.

Above is from Debka on Feb 26th

The US has given Libya roughly 70 billion dollars in aid during his reign.
Also it was a big deal when American and mostly British intelligence got Qaddafi to abandon nuclear development shortly after the 2003 war. Has that even been mentioned in any of the coverage?


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: betteroffhere on March 04, 2011, 07:35:44 pm
Obama issues an executive order blocking transfer or withdrawal of funds by Qaddafi or his children. He also cancelled military contacts with Libya shortly after all US embassy staff flew out of Tripoli  Friday night.

Above is from Debka on Feb 26th

The US has given Libya roughly 70 billion dollars in aid during his reign.
Also it was a big deal when American and mostly British intelligence got Qaddafi to abandon nuclear development shortly after the 2003 war. Has that even been mentioned in any of the coverage?

we ran it by a few test focus groups and they didn't seem interested...


Title: Re: Libya, it is getting real
Post by: Howey on March 17, 2011, 07:33:48 pm
UN passes resolution authorizing military intervention. Crowds in Benghazi sing threats to Khaddafi.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 20, 2011, 11:09:30 am
Obviously trying to make comparisons, Drudge leads off today with an original thought (not c/p'd from elsewhere!)

Quote
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...


Yeah. Umm...

Please discuss the differences:


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: uselesslegs on March 20, 2011, 12:42:35 pm
Obviously trying to make comparisons, Drudge leads off today with an original thought (not c/p'd from elsewhere!)
 

Yeah. Umm...

Please discuss the differences:

Welllllll...

Minus Amerika, military, free, and grave danger...it's the same.

It's all in the word play maing.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 20, 2011, 03:35:38 pm
Welllllll...

Minus Amerika, military, free, and grave danger...it's the same.

It's all in the word play maing.

I was thinking more in line the backstory...

Like:

This time there's no lies!

On a side note: There was a comparison made this morning. Comparing the current action to Gulf War I.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on March 20, 2011, 07:26:54 pm
Last Sunday, watching the Sunday morning news shows, everyone from the administration was acting like a no fly zone was a bad idea.  Somehow, during the week, it became a great idea.

Now, what is America's foreign policy interest in going to war with Libya?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 20, 2011, 07:43:08 pm
Last Sunday, watching the Sunday morning news shows, everyone from the administration was acting like a no fly zone was a bad idea.  Somehow, during the week, it became a great idea.

Now, what is America's foreign policy interest in going to war with Libya?

Were they? I thought the Administration deferred to a UN consensus.

Let me get this straight. You and Hugo Chavez are the only people on earth questioning what has been widely acclaimed as a foreign policy victory for Obama?

I'll bet if he parted the Red Sea you'd find something to bitch about.  :-[


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on March 20, 2011, 07:56:49 pm
Were they? I thought the Administration deferred to a UN consensus.

Let me get this straight. You and Hugo Chavez are the only people on earth questioning what has been widely acclaimed as a foreign policy victory for Obama?

I'll bet if he parted the Red Sea you'd find something to bitch about.  :-[

From the news I've been watching (not FOX by the way, but Obama friendly networks) this has not been portrayed as any sort of foreign policy victory.  In fact, even if you support the action, it's no victory for Obama.  It sounds more like in the tug of war between Hillary and Gates, Hillary won.

If you think this is a foreign policy victory, how exactly is that the case? 


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 20, 2011, 08:20:30 pm
btw - can you leave a FB msg for Sarah Palin or send a twitter msg to @SarahPalinUSA and let her know about "Water's Edge"?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on March 20, 2011, 08:23:50 pm
btw - can you leave a FB msg for Sarah Palin or send a twitter msg to @SarahPalinUSA and let her know about "Water's Edge"?

?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on March 20, 2011, 09:22:11 pm
Obviously trying to make comparisons, Drudge leads off today with an original thought (not c/p'd from elsewhere!)
 

Yeah. Umm...

Please discuss the differences:

we(as in many of us) are helping poorly-armed rebels fight their own civil war,  that they started, against someone who has the means to chem/bio bomb them and truly fuck up their day.. The UN is there to referee and make sure teh Col. doesn't use the biggest and baddest in his armory to slaughter everyone in the way mercilessly..

instead of starting and then fighting their civil war for them like we did in Iraq.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on March 20, 2011, 09:30:23 pm
btw,  why is Gadhafi's a colonel?

why isn't he a general?



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: 44nutman on March 21, 2011, 10:43:18 am
I feel sorry for the rebels but this is not our fight. France, Arab League, The African(whatever they call their group), UK and the UN all were for going into Libya. Well the combined forces of those groups and some using our equipment is more than enough to level the playing field in Libya. Why the eff do they need the US? I am sorry the role of world police is one we can not afford anymore. There are other countries with dictators, what are the parameters we use to help out countries. African nations are performing genocide, so who do we help out next. The world needs to learn how to rely on someone other than the US.
France pissed me off during the run-up to the NO Fly Zone. They were bitching and trying to coerce help with the NFZ. I was thinking, listen France if you can't kick Libya's ass then you should not consider yourself a world power. Their air force would have little problem locking the skies down over Libya. If France is outraged, they don't even need aircraft carriers, they are close enough to run sortees from within their borders.
 We are stuck in Iraq and Afghanastan and have crippling debt. If Libya was located in North or South America, then I would be for some sort of intervention, but Africa needs to become Europes problem. We already have to take care of the Middle East because of the Saudi's and Israeli's. We got Japan and South Korea in Asia, we do more than enough to solve their Earth's military problems. When it comes to a problem when the military intervention is needed we are like a drunken college chick at a frat party, we can't say no. 
It is time for America to transition from the ideas of Woodrow Wilson back to Teddy Roosevelt.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 11:42:40 am
Who woulda thought I'd be the hawk on this one?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 12:43:46 pm
btw,  why is Gadhafi's a colonel?

why isn't he a general?



Dammit. That was supposed to be my Thought of the Day. Thief! :D


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 12:48:48 pm
?

See...if this had been John Kerry you'd be all over it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/sarah-palin-warns-of-chin_n_838030.html

Quote
She took a swipe at President Barack Obama and what she described as his "dithering" response to the political upheaval in the Middle East, saying he "should have done more for Arab protesters."


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: 44nutman on March 21, 2011, 01:13:46 pm
Who woulda thought I'd be the hawk on this one?
You neo-con. I can't wait for you to start quoting Karl Rove.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 03:33:07 pm
You neo-con. I can't wait for you to start quoting Karl Rove.

Oh well. lilMike thinks I quote Karl Marx all the time.  ::)


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 03:49:17 pm
This is a bit of damning praise (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html), but does reflect my feelings on the President's approach to Libya:

Quote
Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton's State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates's Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: uselesslegs on March 21, 2011, 04:42:47 pm
This is a bit of damning praise (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html), but does reflect my feelings on the President's approach to Libya:


I read the article and thought almost exactly the same thing you did...damning praise.  But either way you slice it, innocents will die.  So even with the best of intentions and agreements abroad, even from the very people involved...lives will be lost.

It's such a hoot to know, that one crazy egomaniac's inability to relinquish power will kill thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands.  Life, what a shitcan.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 05:40:40 pm
I read the article and thought almost exactly the same thing you did...damning praise.  But either way you slice it, innocents will die.  So even with the best of intentions and agreements abroad, even from the very people involved...lives will be lost.

It's such a hoot to know, that one crazy egomaniac's inability to relinquish power will kill thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands.  Life, what a shitcan.

One can only consider the number of dead if the coalition did nothing.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: uselesslegs on March 21, 2011, 06:06:27 pm
One can only consider the number of dead if the coalition did nothing.

Oh, I have no doubt that the death toll would definitely be insane without coalition intervention.

I was just lamenting the insanity of the human equation, at times, in general.  I have these sporadic hippy days maaaaannnnnnnn.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 21, 2011, 06:13:26 pm
I have these sporadic hippy days maaaaannnnnnnn.

I just baked some of my "special" cookies. Want some?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: uselesslegs on March 21, 2011, 07:05:16 pm
I just baked some of my "special" cookies. Want some?

Fuck no.  A good gust of wind finds me actually fighting to stay up right.  If I indulged...I'd look like one of those friggin car lot balloon thingies, all flopping around, arms flailing and shit.



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on March 21, 2011, 10:08:35 pm
Fuck no.  A good gust of wind finds me actually fighting to stay up right.  If I indulged...I'd look like one of those friggin car lot balloon thingies, all flopping around, arms flailing and shit.



*note to self, give Chuck special brownies at next meeting... for uh, purely scientific reasons...yeah ;)


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 22, 2011, 04:16:46 pm
You can't simultaneously fire teachers and Tomahawk missles:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/225701/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-odyssey-dawn


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on March 27, 2011, 05:36:49 pm
Which politician is more crooked?  The one who is bought and turns against his benefactor, or the one who stays bought?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/saif_al_qaddafi_we_funded_sarkozys_campaign_and_we_want_our_money_back (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/saif_al_qaddafi_we_funded_sarkozys_campaign_and_we_want_our_money_back)

Saif al-Qaddafi: We funded Sarkozy's campaign and we want our money back


In contrast to its inept response to the upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, Nicolas Sarkozy's government was out in front in its response to Libya -- condemning the Qaddafi regime, recognizing the rebel government, and pushing for a no-fly zone. The Qaddafis' response? We want our money back:

Saif al-Islam: “Sarkozy must first give back the money he took from Libya to finance his electoral campaign. We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything. The first thing we want this clown to do is to give the money back to the Libyan people. He was given assistance so that he could help them. But he’s disappointed us: give us back our money. We have all the bank details and documents for the transfer operations and we will make everything public soon.”



It's kind of hard to take him at his word, but the Europeans have been more than willing to hold a dollar from Mid-East dictators in the past.


And related to this topic, check out my blog:  http://muchedumbre.com/war-number-three (http://muchedumbre.com/war-number-three)



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 27, 2011, 07:14:03 pm
It's kind of hard to take him at his word, but the Europeans have been more than willing to hold a dollar from Mid-East dictators in the past.



I don't believe that or the thousands of other claims they've put out...


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: 44nutman on March 28, 2011, 09:31:32 am
Looks like the USA is on the same side as Al Quada. That is awesome!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


You want to stop the deficit, bring everyone home. I thought that is what Obama promised now we are up to 3 countries. Maybe we can invade the world.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on March 28, 2011, 10:04:15 am
Looks like the USA is on the same side as Al Quada. That is awesome!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


You want to stop the deficit, bring everyone home. I thought that is what Obama promised now we are up to 3 countries. Maybe we can invade the world.

I was wondering about this the other day. There's no distinct opposition leader in Libya, it's a tribal based society. Where's the ex-pats out there willing to lead the country?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on March 28, 2011, 05:06:45 pm
I don't believe that or the thousands of other claims they've put out...


I did say it's hard to take him at his word, but France does have a history with Libya.

That makes it hard to understand their politics, because I don't know who is paying who.  In the 80's when we attacked Libya, France refused to allow us to overfly their territory and opposed the strike.  That was when Ghaddafi was King Terrorist.

Now that he's put aside his terrorist ways, France led the charge to attack and interfere with their civil war.

I'm not following how any of that makes sense unless someone(s) on the take.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on March 30, 2011, 06:45:47 pm


Jadaliyya Interview with Ali Ahmida (http://religionresearch.org/martijn/2011/02/25/jadaliyya-interview-with-ali-ahmida/)

This is an expert on Libya. It's just a starting point but a good way to get context. There is a new interview with him at TRNN. Something being a blog doesn't necessarily make it any less trustworthy as is certainly the case with the above. Some of his credentials below:

Quote
BIDDEFORD, Maine — The University of New England College of Arts and Sciences has announced that the 2010-2011 Ludcke Chair of Liberal Arts and Sciences has been awarded to Professor Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, Ph.D. 

The Ludcke Chair, funded by a generous bequest from the estate of Eleanor Ludcke (Westbrook College class of 1926), is presented annually to a tenured member of the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences in recognition of their outstanding academic accomplishments.
The Ludcke Chair recipient receives a stipend in support of their development as a teacher and scholar and gives a public lecture in early December, followed by a reception.
The chair holder must have attained the ideal of the “teacher/scholar,” a dedicated educator and productive researcher who has given generously of their time to the University of New England over a significant period. Professor Ahmida is the chair of the Political Science Department and an internationally recognized scholar of North African history and politics.

Professor Ahmida was born in Libya and educated at Cairo University in Egypt and the University of Washington in Seattle. His specialty is political theory, comparative politics, and historical sociology of power, agency and anti-colonial resistance in North Africa, especially modern Libya.

He has published major articles in Critique, Arab Future, and International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies.
He is also the author of The Making of Modern Libya: State Formation, Colonialization and Resistance (State of New York University Press, 1994). This book has been translated into Arabic and was published in a second edition by the Center of Arab Unity Studies (1998, Beirut, Lebanon).
His 2005 book, Forgotten Voices: Power and Agency in Colonial and Postcolonial Libya (Routledge Press) was also translated and issued in Italian and most recently in 2009 in Arabic by the Center of Arab Unity Studies, Beirut.

Professor Ahmida is the editor of Beyond Colonialism and Nationalism in the Maghrib: History, Culture and Politics (Palgrave, 2000). He has also recently published Bridges Across the Sahara: Social, Economic and Cultural Impact of the Trans-Sahara Trade during the 19th and 20th Centuries (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009); and Post-Orientalism: Critical Reviews in North African Social and Cultural History (published in Arabic by the Center of Arab Unity Studies, Beirut, Lebanon 2009)

He has lectured in a variety of U.S., Canadian, European and African universities and colleges, and has contributed several book reviews, articles and chapters to books on the African state, identity and alienation, class and state formation in modern Libya.

Professor Ahmida has received many academic grants and awards, including a Social Science Research Council National Grant Award, the Shahade Award, and the 2003 Kenneally Cup Award for distinguished academic service at the University of New England. Professor Ahmida is the third recipient of the Ludcke Chair.  Elizabeth De Wolfe, professor of History, was awarded the first Ludcke Chair in 2008-2009. Stephan Zeeman, professor of Marine Science, held the Ludcke Chair in 2009-2010.
(News release posted May 28, 2010)


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on April 09, 2011, 02:25:35 pm
That didn't take long.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl)

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya


The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.


Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.


Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on April 09, 2011, 02:39:52 pm
That didn't take long.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl)

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya


The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.


Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.


Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.



Good.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979201339


Quote
There are fierce battles in Misrata as the rebels fight against Gaddafi’s forces. The town is under siege. UNICEF reports that Gaddafi’s militia is shooting children to death, notes the Bellingham Herald.

A spokesperson for UNICEF said the organization has “reliable and consistent reports of children being among the people targeted by snipers in Misrata.” Gaddafi has the blood of children on his hands. His troops are committing war crimes. It is horrific that Gaddafi has had control of Libya for so long. When will his reign of terror end?



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on April 15, 2011, 08:56:05 pm
Send In The Troops! (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/africa/16libya.html?hp)

Quote
Military forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi have been firing into residential neighborhoods in this embattled city with heavy weapons, including cluster bombs that have been banned by much of the world and ground-to-ground rockets, according to witnesses and survivors, as well as physical evidence.

Both of these so-called “indiscriminate” weapons, which strike large areas with a dense succession of high-explosive munitions, by their nature cannot be fired precisely. When fired into populated areas they place civilians at grave risk.

The dangers were evident beside one of the impact craters on Friday, where eight people had been killed while standing in a bread line. Where a crowd had assembled for food, bits of human flesh had been blasted against a cinder block wall.

The use of such weapons in these ways could add urgency to the arguments by Britain and France that the alliance needs to step up attacks on the Qaddafi forces, to better fulfill the United Nations mandate to protect civilians.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on April 16, 2011, 03:37:07 pm
Are you seriously wanting to send in the troops?

Well go big or go home, at least according to Stern.

http://sharpelbowsstl.blogspot.com/2011/04/howard-stern-libya-situation.html (http://sharpelbowsstl.blogspot.com/2011/04/howard-stern-libya-situation.html)


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on April 22, 2011, 09:50:46 pm
With U.S. in support role, NATO's Libya mission 'going in circles'
Kadafi's forces have been able to intensify their counteroffensive while NATO members don't appear willing to escalate their intervention.
By David S. Cloud and Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times
April 18, 2011, 7:24 p.m.


Quote
Reporting from Washington and Benghazi, Libya— A month ago in Libya, troops loyal to Moammar Kadafi were advancing on opposition-held areas, tens of thousands of civilians feared for their lives, and rebel forces appeared in disarray with little prospect of driving Kadafi from power.

After four weeks and hundreds of airstrikes by the U.S. and its NATO allies, in many ways little has changed.

Kadafi's tanks and artillery no longer threaten the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi in eastern Libya, and Kadafi's combat aircraft and helicopter gunships are grounded. But the disorganized rebel forces are still outmatched and outnumbered by Libyan army units, which, along with their leader, show no sign of giving up.

Rather, Kadafi has intensified his counteroffensive in recent days. Human rights groups accused Kadafi's military of using cluster bombs and truck-mounted Grad rockets to bombard residential areas of Misurata, the only city in western Libya still in rebel hands.

"We rushed into this without a plan," said David Barno, a retired Army general who once commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. "Now we're out in the middle, going in circles."

The failure of the international air campaign to force Kadafi's ouster, or even to stop his military from shelling civilians and recapturing rebel-held towns, poses a growing quandary for President Obama and other NATO leaders: What now?

Privately, U.S. officials concede that some of their assumptions before they intervened in the Libyan conflict may have been faulty. Among them was the notion that air power alone would degrade Kadafi's military to the point where he would be forced to halt his attacks, and that the U.S. could leave the airstrikes primarily to warplanes from Britain, France and other European countries.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the charge within NATO to launch the air campaign in Libya, argued last week that the alliance needed to step up its attacks to fulfill the United Nations mandate to protect civilians. But winning agreement to escalate the intervention could further divide the already badly split alliance.

The U.S. military moved into a support role early this month, and Obama has given no indication that he will send U.S. warplanes into combat missions again, let alone reconsider his promise not to use ground troops in Libya.*

His decision to intervene in Libya was not popular at the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top uniformed officers have shown little interest in taking a major role in the conflict while they are fighting the war in Afghanistan. Obama managed to overcome his advisors' objections by promising to keep the U.S. role limited.

If the alliance's most powerful member isn't willing to escalate, few other members will be eager to do so.

But the longer Kadafi holds up under the NATO attacks, the more pressure there will be in Washington and European capitals to deal with him by escalating the military campaign, arming the rebels or ratcheting up sanctions and other indirect measures, in hopes of forcing him from power.

Adm. James Stavridis, the U.S. commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has appealed to NATO members for additional attack planes — a request that U.S. officials made clear that other alliance members would have to meet.

Obama's decision to limit the U.S. military role left NATO without A-10 Thunderbolt II or AC-130 Spectre gunships, U.S. planes that are designed for close air support of ground troops and precise attacks against ground targets.

The U.S. is keeping A-10s and other strike aircraft on standby in case of an emergency. But bringing the planes back into the fight is not under consideration, a NATO officer said.

Still, the air campaign clearly has weakened Kadafi's army. Allied airstrikes have destroyed nearly 40% of Libya's military equipment and headquarters facilities, according to a senior U.S. military official.

With a maritime exclusion zone preventing Kadafi from obtaining supplies by sea, there also are signs that his government is struggling to provide ammunition, transportation and food to troops in the field. They include the 32nd Brigade, an elite unit led by Kadafi's youngest son, Khamis, and a prime target of airstrikes, the U.S. official said.

Kadafi's long-term prospects for staying in power are not good, U.S. officials insist. They cite the defection of several top aides, including his former intelligence chief, and the loss of billions of dollars in oil revenue that he once used to help ensure loyalty in a tribal-based society.

But those gains have not shifted the balance of military power.

The motley rebel forces that emerged in mid-February to challenge Kadafi's 41-year rule have proved inept on the battlefield. Nor have Kadafi's military commanders or key units defected to the rebel side, as some European officials had hoped.

"We do believe he is having some trouble in being able to mount a sustained campaign," said the U.S. official, speaking anonymously because he was discussing intelligence estimates. "That said, he is still much better organized than the rebels and still has the upper hand."

In some ways, Kadafi's forces have proved surprisingly adept. Instead of using armored troop carriers that attract attention from surveillance aircraft, they have camouflaged troop movements by relying on the same kind of battered pickup trucks that the rebels use, even disguising the vehicles with the opposition flag.

The concealment tactic on the ever-shifting front lines allowed Libyan army units to advance to the eastern city of Ajdabiya recently before they were beaten back for the third time by rebel troops and NATO air attacks. Yet again on Sunday, rebels in Ajdabiya came under attack from Kadafi's rocket-firing forces.

"We expected Kadafi to quickly fold his tent and go somewhere else," said Barno, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. "But the Libyan forces quickly adapted to the airstrikes by becoming very quickly like civilians."

No one seems certain how to break the stalemate. Ratcheting down the NATO-led air campaign while large segments of Kadafi's military remain intact would leave the rebels vulnerable to being slaughtered.

The Air Force is flying two Predator drones over Libya to help conduct surveillance, but they are unarmed, officials said. The U.S. also is transferring precision-guided bombs to NATO allies flying combat missions, since supplies have begun running short, the NATO officer said.

The last time the United States undertook an air war largely for humanitarian purposes was during the 1999 NATO campaign in Kosovo, the Serbian province where police and soldiers loyal to Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic were carrying out a ruthless assault on ethnic Albanians.

Clinton administration officials expected Milosevic to surrender quickly after NATO launched airstrikes, but the bombing campaign lasted 78 days. The Clinton White House promised early on not to send U.S. ground troops into Kosovo, but critics said that appeared to embolden Milosevic to resist.

Unlike the conflict in Libya, however, U.S. warplanes conducted the vast majority of the airstrikes during the Kosovo campaign and gradually escalated the bombing. U.S. officials even threatened at one point to begin flying attack helicopters, and Milosevic ultimately buckled.

There has been little sign that NATO is considering — or even capable of — that kind of escalation in Libya as long as the U.S. stays in a supporting role.

"By the U.S. taking a back-seat role, it has a psychological effect on the mission," said Dan Fata, a former Defense Department official who was responsible for overseeing NATO issues during the George W. Bush administration. "If I'm Kadafi, I'm thinking I can probably wait the Europeans out."

david.cloud@latimes.com
Commits to drones 3 days later
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates-libya-20110422,0,6275441.story

US Allies With Al Qaeda In Libya
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/03/27/us-allies-with-al-qaeda-in-libya/

Libyan  ground forces degraded by up to 40 percent: U.S. 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-libya-usa-military-idUSTRE73L3FH20110422

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-libya-20110423,0,4363408.story



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 01, 2011, 06:04:18 pm
This is the kind of story that would have been big news oh... about 2 1/2 years ago.  Now, not so much.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-disabled-children-school-hit-nato-strike-201036691.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-disabled-children-school-hit-nato-strike-201036691.html)

Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike


Shattered glass litters the carpet at the Libyan Down's Syndrome Society, and dust covers pictures of grinning children that adorn the hallway, thrown into darkness by a NATO strike early on Saturday.

It was unclear what the target of the strike was, though Libyan officials said it was Muammar Gaddafi himself, who was giving a live television address at the time.

"They maybe wanted to hit the television. This is a non-military, non-governmental building," said Mohammed al-Mehdi, head of the civil societies council, which licenses and oversees civil groups in Libya.

The missile completely destroyed an adjoining office in the compound that houses the government's commission for children.

The force of the blast blew in windows and doors in the parent-funded school for children with Down's Syndrome and officials said it damaged an orphanage on the floor above.



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 01, 2011, 08:30:19 pm
 ::)


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on May 01, 2011, 09:06:06 pm
This is the kind of story that would have been big news oh... about 2 1/2 years ago.  Now, not so much.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-disabled-children-school-hit-nato-strike-201036691.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-disabled-children-school-hit-nato-strike-201036691.html)

Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike


Shattered glass litters the carpet at the Libyan Down's Syndrome Society, and dust covers pictures of grinning children that adorn the hallway, thrown into darkness by a NATO strike early on Saturday.

It was unclear what the target of the strike was, though Libyan officials said it was Muammar Gaddafi himself, who was giving a live television address at the time.

"They maybe wanted to hit the television. This is a non-military, non-governmental building," said Mohammed al-Mehdi, head of the civil societies council, which licenses and oversees civil groups in Libya.

The missile completely destroyed an adjoining office in the compound that houses the government's commission for children.

The force of the blast blew in windows and doors in the parent-funded school for children with Down's Syndrome and officials said it damaged an orphanage on the floor above.


So do we actually have common ground on Libya? A man who the US was very friendly to during his reign, giving him roughly 70 billion in aid over his time. As dictator's go, he seems like a pretty good one. He was building infrastructure for his people with the money as well as bringing in water through a very expensive operation.

This is unfortunately happening right now and recent history can't be muddled as the mainstream so often does without giving all the details and asking the right questions. If we could keep it on just the issue of our forces going into a sovereign country which posed no threat to us or it's neighbors and not project any agenda onto the other it would be beneficial.

I believe one of the strong rationalizations was that he was going to bomb or did bomb a particular bunch of the resistance and/or innocent people and that it couldn't be allowed. Obviously I hate people being killed but it's not a justification that holds any water:

Because A. We don't do it in Africa where people are constant victims of genocide and

B. That's not what the US Armed Forces mission is in the world.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 02, 2011, 08:23:38 am
So do we actually have common ground on Libya? A man who the US was very friendly to during his reign, giving him roughly 70 billion in aid over his time. As dictator's go, he seems like a pretty good one. He was building infrastructure for his people with the money as well as bringing in water through a very expensive operation.

This is unfortunately happening right now and recent history can't be muddled as the mainstream so often does without giving all the details and asking the right questions. If we could keep it on just the issue of our forces going into a sovereign country which posed no threat to us or it's neighbors and not project any agenda onto the other it would be beneficial.

I believe one of the strong rationalizations was that he was going to bomb or did bomb a particular bunch of the resistance and/or innocent people and that it couldn't be allowed. Obviously I hate people being killed but it's not a justification that holds any water:

Because A. We don't do it in Africa where people are constant victims of genocide and

B. That's not what the US Armed Forces mission is in the world.

a) we don't have oil interests in africa
b)sometimes it is..

it's glib to say 'it's for oil' but we do get a some oil of it from Libya..   and in Africa, I just don't see any way to end it even with our intrusion..

I'm sure Obama and the rest would have been happy to let it all play out on it's own like it has everywhere else in the Mid-east where the people are rising up.. but this time Ghadaffi threatened to kill everyone in sight and the mid-east leaders believed him and asked for our assistance..

there was no good response..

think about it... Obama is literally damned with either choice he makes... Don't get involved and watch 1000's and maybe even 10's of 1000's slaughtered ... for which he would be supremely vilified for and blamed

or

do what can minimally be done and get blamed for using the US military here instead of there..

I can only assume he made the choice that would let him sleep at night.

this is why he was elected.. to make these choices. He made it, it's working out OK so far.. let's see how it eventually plays out.

what choice would you have made?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on May 02, 2011, 08:28:23 am
Ghadaffi's been known for using women and children as shields to cover his own ass.
Ghadaffi's been known to shoot at and kill women and children willy-nilly.

Why am I concerned a strike blew out windows of some home for kids?

I'm not. Take him out.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on May 02, 2011, 12:34:43 pm
a) we don't have oil interests in africa
b)sometimes it is..

it's glib to say 'it's for oil' but we do get a some oil of it from Libya..   and in Africa, I just don't see any way to end it even with our intrusion..

I'm sure Obama and the rest would have been happy to let it all play out on it's own like it has everywhere else in the Mid-east where the people are rising up.. but this time Ghadaffi threatened to kill everyone in sight and the mid-east leaders believed him and asked for our assistance..

there was no good response..

think about it... Obama is literally damned with either choice he makes... Don't get involved and watch 1000's and maybe even 10's of 1000's slaughtered ... for which he would be supremely vilified for and blamed

or

do what can minimally be done and get blamed for using the US military here instead of there..

I can only assume he made the choice that would let him sleep at night.

this is why he was elected.. to make these choices. He made it, it's working out OK so far.. let's see how it eventually plays out.

what choice would you have made?

Everything you say is true and makes sense. I guess I don't agree with the ends justifying the means. I know there are always exceptions to rules but the use of the military seems to have become an untouchable by congress or an after thought. Within the present framework I suppose I would have done what he did but who is the enemy and who is the ally in that situation...Or is going to be another Afghanistan where we just stay and maintain bases and talk about security?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 02, 2011, 04:10:36 pm
Everything you say is true and makes sense. I guess I don't agree with the ends justifying the means. I know there are always exceptions to rules but the use of the military seems to have become an untouchable by congress or an after thought. Within the present framework I suppose I would have done what he did but who is the enemy and who is the ally in that situation...Or is going to be another Afghanistan where we just stay and maintain bases and talk about security?

That's the worst part of all... Ghaddfi was a shitty guy, but he was our shitty guy.  The ones to  take over? May hate us... and for that, we could be in worse danger. But at the end of the day there was only one choice to make and that was not to allow a dictator brutally murder 10's of 1000's of his people all because they wanted to be free..

in other parts of Africa the same genocide happens and we don't send in our guys..  but I think that the chance was taken in Libya because to have another country in that area to become a democracy, is just too good of an option to pass up..


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on May 02, 2011, 04:29:28 pm
During all the talk this morning over bin Laden, I heard a line I've been using for a while. It was the fact that the youth of the Middle East want change in how their countries are run, they want a voice and the freedom to enjoy that freedom.

It may or may not be a slow process, but it will.

The thing about Libya, especially when Ghadaffi's gone, is that it is a clear message - not from the U.S., NATO, or any government - from the people to their governments.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 02, 2011, 06:15:29 pm
That's the worst part of all... Ghaddfi was a shitty guy, but he was our shitty guy.  The ones to  take over? May hate us... and for that, we could be in worse danger. But at the end of the day there was only one choice to make and that was not to allow a dictator brutally murder 10's of 1000's of his people all because they wanted to be free..

in other parts of Africa the same genocide happens and we don't send in our guys..  but I think that the chance was taken in Libya because to have another country in that area to become a democracy, is just too good of an option to pass up..

We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 02, 2011, 09:59:13 pm
We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

well, you can not believe it all you want, but we do get oil from them..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.

I don't know why, you've been given a pretty decent answer..

Quote
Why Syria is different for the U.S.

The United Nations says it has information that 76 people were killed in that country last Friday alone, apparently during peaceful marches. President Bashar al-Assad's regime has described the protesters as "armed criminal groups," and shows no sign of letting up.

President Barack Obama has condemned the violence "in the strongest possible terms" and is seeking ways to "increase the pressure on the regime ... in a targeted way," according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. So far, however, the response has amounted to little more than talk.

Rights group: More than 400 killed in Syria.

Over in Libya, however, the U.S. reaction was entirely different when strongman Moammar Gadhafi promised to show "no mercy" to residents of the rebel-held city of Benghazi. Washington worked furiously behind the scenes at the United Nations to win an international mandate for a naval blockade, a no-fly zone and a license to take military action to protect civilians.

Obama promised no use of ground troops, but U.S. air power was used to devastating effect against elements of Gadhafi's forces before control of the operation was handed over to NATO commanders.

The White House says the two situations can't be compared.

Libya was "a unique situation," Carney told reporters Monday. "We had large portions of the country that were out of the control of Moammar Gadhafi (and) we had an international consensus to act. We had the support of the Arab League to act in a multilateral fashion."


But Washington is "pursuing a range of possible policy options" in Syria, he stressed. The administration is looking at "targeted sanctions to respond to the crackdown ... and to make clear that this behavior is unacceptable."

American "values and principles apply to all countries," Defense Secretary Robert Gates added Tuesday. "Our response in each country will have to be tailored to that country, and the circumstances peculiar to that country."


Second, there is "nowhere near the consensus on Syria as there is on Libya," Pletka told CNN. Syria, as opposed to Libya, stands at the heart of the Arab world. Assad has more friends and allies to call on.

"Assad is a dictator, a sponsor of terrorism, (and) a thug," Pletka said. "You could argue he's worse than Gadhafi." But "on Syria, the Arab League is not going to be nearly as forward-leaning. (They're) much closer to Assad."



At the same time, Israel may have a hostile relationship with its neighbor, but the Israeli leadership is "very comfortable with the devil it knows" in Damascus


Obama, Pletka said, has shown an extreme reluctance to engage in unilateral military action. Ousting Assad would change the entire political dynamic in the Middle East to the benefit of the United States, she said, noting Syria's close ties to Iran and organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But unless and until a firmer international consensus emerges, more concerted action is unlikely.

Military action in Libya may also have became a priority partly due to fears of al Qaeda, according to Rick Nelson, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, another Washington think tank.

Al Qaeda is "good at using countries in chaos to carve out safe havens," Nelson said, noting that the second-highest number of foreign fighters for al Qaeda in Iraq came from Libya. As Libya became more unstable, it may have become a priority for Western powers to ensure the country doesn't become more of a home for al Qaeda leaders.

Nelson echoed Pletka's point about the lack of an international consensus on Syria.

"People don't want to be on Assad's bad side," he said. If you attack Syria, "you're crossing a line that is changing the whole strategic calculus in the region in one move," he said. "The stakes are a lot higher."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-26/us/u.s..libya.syria_1_libya-syria-president-bashar?_s=PM:US


I mean, we may not even have Israel on our side in that one..

now, you may not like it.. but don't say you can't make real sense of the administration's policy. .. it's pretty clear.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: JukeBoxGuy on May 02, 2011, 10:36:44 pm
We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.

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.

North Africa and the Middle East are a mess.  The countries are artificial.  They were formed through European colonization and are held together only by brutal dictatorship.  When these dictatorships collapse, they fracture along ethnic and tribal lines.

Our problem is that we have to choose our battles, as we can't afford to fight everywhere.  With our ground troops still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and since our European allies seem to be willing to take the lead, Libya seems to be the battle of choice.

I think we hope that Syria and Yemen will sort themselves out, as did Egypt.  In the case if Syria, Israeli intervention may become a factor.

As for Iran, I think we are delaying an inevitable confrontation. 

And if anyone thinks that Pakistan is anything more than an Ally of Convenience, they are deluding themselves...   


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on May 03, 2011, 12:26:42 pm

In what way did Egypt sort itself out? A military command with no identified leader and curfews as well as continued violence against those seeking a true democracy...



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 03, 2011, 06:43:37 pm
well, you can not believe it all you want, but we do get oil from them..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm



OK I stand corrected.  We do get some oil from Libya.  But it just doesn't seem to be a significant amount.  Like 2% of our imported oil.  Less than we get from Belgium and Trinadad and Tobago.

Your reply to Fafa here was that oil was one of the reasons we intervened.

a) we don't have oil interests in africa


So was it?  Is this a war for oil?


I don't know why, you've been given a pretty decent answer..

I mean, we may not even have Israel on our side in that one..

now, you may not like it.. but don't say you can't make real sense of the administration's policy. .. it's pretty clear.


You accept everything pretty much uncritically from the administration so you may not be the best judge of whats a clear answer or not.

Why was the fact that large areas in rebel hands make a difference as to whether it was in US national interest or not?

Or because the international community and the Arab League supported it?  How does that make it US national interest?



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 03, 2011, 08:41:00 pm

OK I stand corrected.  We do get some oil from Libya.  But it just doesn't seem to be a significant amount.  Like 2% of our imported oil.  Less than we get from Belgium and Trinadad and Tobago.

Your reply to Fafa here was that oil was one of the reasons we intervened.


So was it?  Is this a war for oil?

you make my head hurt.

it's not that black and white..

so no it wasn't... and then yes it was..

the same way fafa and I were both correct when we said

Quote
B. That's not what the US Armed Forces mission is in the world.

b)sometimes it is..

you know this.. why do you want to pretend otherwise just because the President has (D) after his name? Can you really not get over it already?

You accept everything pretty much uncritically from the administration so you may not be the best judge of whats a clear answer or not.

and you only accept words,thoughts,wars, and polices if they come from GOP members..   

Why was the fact that large areas in rebel hands make a difference as to whether it was in US national interest or not?

Or because the international community and the Arab League supported it?  How does that make it US national interest?



I think the article I gave and JBG's reply is pretty easy to understand, so nothing I can say now will make it an easier for you to decide to understand it.. how about pretending it's coming from Bush and Cheney, maybe that will make it easier for you to get?


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 03, 2011, 09:19:23 pm
you make my head hurt.

it's not that black and white..

so no it wasn't... and then yes it was..

Well there are wars for oil and then wars for oil.  I thought it was odd that you would use that formulation on the first war in the middle east that we've gotten into that "war for oil" has not been a lefty talking point.

So to me, it was weird that you were saying it when I wasn't hearing it from Code Pinko or ANSWER.  I suppose one could make a case that the Gulf War was a war for oil, and I don't think there is any case that Iraq was a war for oil, but the left claimed both of them were.

And Libya?  At 2% of oil, I don't think this is a war for oil.

For us.


the same way fafa and I were both correct when we said

you know this.. why do you want to pretend otherwise just because the President has (D) after his name? Can you really not get over it already?

and you only accept words,thoughts,wars, and polices if they come from GOP members..   

I think the article I gave and JBG's reply is pretty easy to understand, so nothing I can say now will make it an easier for you to decide to understand it.. how about pretending it's coming from Bush and Cheney, maybe that will make it easier for you to get?

It was easy to understand except when it came to explaining what was the US national security interest was.  That is my question after all. I get it that it was exciting to lead from behind the French and Arab League, but because you are seeking the approval of other's in their national security interests doesn't make it our national security interest.  I mean, if we had no other wars or anything else going and just needed practice with operations and live fire, eh, maybe then.

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

But if it makes you feel any better, since we've committed forces, it's in our national security interest now.  I think that's probably not something you would follow though, based on past history but now we're committed to this war and have to get rid of Gaddaffi (damn spelling) and make sure that a  reasonably democratic government takes charge there. 

I hope the President is up for it.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 03, 2011, 11:03:15 pm
Well there are wars for oil and then wars for oil.  I thought it was odd that you would use that formulation on the first war in the middle east that we've gotten into that "war for oil" has not been a lefty talking point.

So to me, it was weird that you were saying it when I wasn't hearing it from Code Pinko or ANSWER.  I suppose one could make a case that the Gulf War was a war for oil, and I don't think there is any case that Iraq was a war for oil, but the left claimed both of them were.

And Libya?  At 2% of oil, I don't think this is a war for oil.

I disagree... that oil serves our national interests and keeping it safe is a part of national security.. even that small amount serves us they are in the top 10 oil producers... There was a need for us to protect our interests..especially now with prices already high.. add in Ghadaffi's treats and the tension it creates in the area gets real ugly real fast..

was it number one on the list? no.. but it was on the list in the top3 IMO.. how can you look at that and say "Nope, don't see it".. all you had to do was listen to the news the 1st few days and hear them tell you of the tension affecting OPEC and gas prices.. just the rumor he was leaving brought them down some..

I don't even know who code pink or ANSWER is so why would I know what they are saying.  I was answering fafa in the simplest way possible.. nothing more, nothing less...


For us.

It was easy to understand except when it came to explaining what was the US national security interest was.  That is my question after all. I get it that it was exciting to lead from behind the French and Arab League, but because you are seeking the approval of other's in their national security interests doesn't make it our national security interest.  I mean, if we had no other wars or anything else going and just needed practice with operations and live fire, eh, maybe then.

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

But if it makes you feel any better, since we've committed forces, it's in our national security interest now.  I think that's probably not something you would follow though, based on past history but now we're committed to this war and have to get rid of Gaddaffi (damn spelling) and make sure that a  reasonably democratic government takes charge there. 

I hope the President is up for it.

I don't find the mystery in what our national interests were in this situation... I don't find the mystery in why we didn't go into Syria or even Iran the way you do.. I do find it mysterious that you expect this President to solve every previous presidents problems though, when you're not really going to 'understand' what he does regardless of how easy it is to understand anyway..

I  think the oil and the chance at another ousted dictator and insertion of a democracy, along with the saving of potentially 10's of 1000's of people who just wanted to be free made it in our interest.. 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.. so you can take this..

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

and add it to that growing list of your refusal to accept anything that doesn't come from the mouth of (R)'s..because I can't make it any easier.. unless I hunt up flow charts, but even that.. would probably be a waste of my time..


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 04, 2011, 10:47:28 pm
I disagree... that oil serves our national interests and keeping it safe is a part of national security.. even that small amount serves us they are in the top 10 oil producers... There was a need for us to protect our interests..especially now with prices already high.. add in Ghadaffi's treats and the tension it creates in the area gets real ugly real fast..

was it number one on the list? no.. but it was on the list in the top3 IMO.. how can you look at that and say "Nope, don't see it".. all you had to do was listen to the news the 1st few days and hear them tell you of the tension affecting OPEC and gas prices.. just the rumor he was leaving brought them down some..

I don't even know who code pink or ANSWER is so why would I know what they are saying.  I was answering fafa in the simplest way possible.. nothing more, nothing less...

Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil, for us.

I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there.  If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.

So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work.  Same thing happened in Bosnia.  There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis.   So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started?  Libya or Syria? 


I don't find the mystery in what our national interests were in this situation... I don't find the mystery in why we didn't go into Syria or even Iran the way you do.. I do find it mysterious that you expect this President to solve every previous presidents problems though, when you're not really going to 'understand' what he does regardless of how easy it is to understand anyway..

I  think the oil and the chance at another ousted dictator and insertion of a democracy, along with the saving of potentially 10's of 1000's of people who just wanted to be free made it in our interest.. 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.. so you can take this..

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

and add it to that growing list of your refusal to accept anything that doesn't come from the mouth of (R)'s..because I can't make it any easier.. unless I hunt up flow charts, but even that.. would probably be a waste of my time..

Yes yes the "mouth of R's."  Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there... I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made?  Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later?  I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed.  That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's.  I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.

Which, considering your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 06, 2011, 09:41:46 am
Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil, for us.

and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.

do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?


I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there.  If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.

So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work.  Same thing happened in Bosnia.  There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis.   So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started?  Libya or Syria? 


yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..

btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way..  I guess going with example from the  Bush era was too much to ask for..

so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..

Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of  their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..

I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..

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

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.. ::)

here's what Rice has said..



Quote
You’re looking at a dictator in Libya who has tried to put down an uprising. If you want to talk about a humanitarian disaster, why did we go into Libya? Because he was about to mow down his own people. He was going to eliminate his own people.
He was going to commit genocide against his own people. Saddam Hussein committed chemical warfare against his own people. And I’d really like to have an answer from those who say it was a good thing to intervene humanitarian way in Libya, because Gadhafi was killing massive numbers of civilians.
Saddam Hussein put 400,000 people in mass graves. He used chemical weapons against Kurds and Shia. If that wasn’t a humanitarian reason to intervene, quite apart from the security reasons, I really think people have a lot of explaining to do.

why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..

so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you...  and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq?  Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do

or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..




Yes yes the "mouth of R's."  Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there...

are we going to kill Ghaddafi?  Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..

are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right?  You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if  the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..

I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made?  Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later?  I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed.  That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's.  I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.

I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..

I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember  theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..



Which, considering your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!

I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit...  but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job..  so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch  of them only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 07, 2011, 02:25:42 pm
and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.

do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?


I agree in general.  But specifically, I don’t see exactly how that applies to us taking up arms against Libya.  We’ve prolonged a civil war that would have been over by now.  How does that add to oil stability?
In fact, I think you’re the first person to mention “oil stability” as a basis for our intervention.  Usually it’s been humanitarian reasons.  Is that a White House reason?  If so, I’ve not heard it.


yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..

btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way..  I guess going with example from the  Bush era was too much to ask for..

so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..

Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of  their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..

I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..

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

Given your behavior this week, I think your credibility to call someone else partisan is rather weak.

Let’s start with Bosnia.  You say that “gave it away” that it was all about partisanship.  In recent history, which intervention is the best example of a humanitarian intervention without a strong US national interest? 
In the former Yugoslav Republic you had a civil war/war of secession within the borders of the former Yugoslavia.  The Europeans, again lead by the French worked the diplomatic strings to get us involved.  For the Europeans, it was in their interest to get involved (I mean get us involved) militarily.  They didn’t want tens of thousands of refugees fleeing into their countries. 
So we got involved and actually brokered a peace treaty, which you can clearly count as a diplomatic success.  But US national interest?

If you think the Bush era offers a better example, I’d like to hear it.  Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was presented as a humanitarian mission.  Those reasons were way down the list.  US national interests were presented in as the primary reasons for intervention in both cases.  So your re-writing of history into turning Iraq into a humanitarian intervention is kind of odd.  I’ve posted the resolution that passed the Congress authorizing use of force in Iraq numerous times.   Do I really need to do it again? There were multiple reasons and the majority related to US national interest.

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.. ::)
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!


here's what Rice has said..



why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..

There was not a popular revolt in Syria. Iran or North Korea during Bush’s term.

There has been a popular revolt in Iran and Syria in Obama’s term though.  Iran?  We already know how that turned out. 

As for Syria, we already know what the Syrians will do.  They’ve massacred before, and so far in this latest rebellion it looks like they’ve racked up a bigger body count than the Libyans.



so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you...  and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq?  Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do

or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..
Answered above.  We didn’t go to war with Iraq because they had massacred and gassed, their own people.

You’re turning into quite the neo-con aren’t you?  I’ve no doubt that Condi supports the intervention, the same as the neo-cons down at the Weekly Standard who are also cheering Obama on.



are we going to kill Ghaddafi?  Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..

are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right?  You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if  the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..

Of course I meant the US by “we.”  Do you think the rest of NATO is buying to a long term commitment?

And as I’ve already stated, I bet I’ll be supporting a longer commitment to Libya long after you have moved on. As you restated, if we broke it we bought it, which is why I supported staying in Iraq and finishing the job.  Even though I opposed the invasion of Iraq.  Once we invaded and overthrew the government, it became our problem and our responsibility.

Now if we hadn’t stayed and we had left when you wanted us to leave, what kind of shape would the middle east be in now?

If we succeed in overthrowing Ghaddafi, the same rules would apply.


I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..

I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember  theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..



I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit...  but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job..  so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch  of them only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..

Well you’re wrong in just about everything you’ve stated.
Partisian?  As you already knew, and reposted yet again, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but once we were in I saw no way to get out other than to make the place a success since the options included leaving a civil war raging, an Iranian client state, or a radical muslim dictatorship.  So in spite of what you wanted, we stuck it out and are now leaving the place actually in better shape than we found it.

Saddam?  Answered above.  Yes I opposed timetables.  They are a valuable weapon that we give to the enemy.

If I’m repeating the same thing over and over, it’s because you are asking the same things over and over.  You won’t believe me the first, third, or thirtieth time I state them, and I except this post to be no different.
Just tell me what are goals and timetables are for Libya.  Since you seem to know much more of what the administration has in mind (rather than just winging it like I think), I would like to hear the administration vision for Libya for a year from now.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on May 07, 2011, 03:02:48 pm

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.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 07, 2011, 11:03:16 pm
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.



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 08, 2011, 11:24:30 am
Just a round up of some stories from the region.

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



Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 08, 2011, 12:54:32 pm

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..

Quote
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
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






Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 08, 2011, 06:25:44 pm
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? 


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 08, 2011, 09:39:27 pm
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<
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.. ::)




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

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


right..Like that's gonna  happen.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 08, 2011, 10:11:24 pm
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.    :'(


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 09, 2011, 07:59:56 am
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.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: Howey on May 09, 2011, 09:37:14 am

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 (http://politika.smfforfree.com/index.php/board,1.0.html). At least I didn't ban anyone and still have my integrity.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 09, 2011, 11:19:45 am


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. 


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: lil mike on May 09, 2011, 11:22:39 am
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 (http://politika.smfforfree.com/index.php/board,1.0.html). 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.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 10, 2011, 11:21:27 am
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'..


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: FooFa on May 10, 2011, 01:15:40 pm
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.


Title: Re: War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)
Post by: ekg on May 10, 2011, 03:19:45 pm
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.. ;)