That and I never want my country to have the military complex that the US does. There are better ways to spend public money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
|
That and I never want my country to have the military complex that the US does. There are better ways to spend public money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
On really important things like FREE health care for ALL ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarmaThat and I never want my country to have the military complex that the US does. There are better ways to spend public money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Well it's not free of course, it's universal health care paid by our taxes, but you knew that, others don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Lol Peace through Strength Obama Style.
Evita is the one in the administration that led . Obama was... present .
I can see the 3AM phone call already ...." Hello Louey ...this is Barack .... I'm going on spring break to Rio ...could you call your friend Mummar and ask him to cool it for a week so I can enjoy it ? "..... cool .... I owe you man !"
OMG that is so funny! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Peace? Nahh. We got a civil war, and it ain't over. If it is, we ain't ahead. We've got a divided Libya, one side run by a dictator who is STILL in power, and the other side run by________ (fill in the blank). Al Quaida? Iran? The Brotherhood? Some other radical Muslim? A friend of ours?
Nahhh. We didn't win.
excon
Yeah and Q~Daffy's the good guy. Why is it that you supported their popular uprise early on when they were the' February 17 group' and now surmise they are some of our worse enemies ? Back then they were the freedom fighters. Why would you support them then and not now ? If they are who you say then shouldn't we do what we can to support Q~Daffy ?
I do know who runs the country. A man supported by a single tribe and a bunch of mercs and weapons he hired and bought with petro-dollars.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I ALWAYS support an uprising against a tyrant, unless the people doing the uprising are tyrants themselves...
Here again, if our intelligence services were DOING THEIR JOB instead of snooping on you and me, we would KNOW who the leader of the rebel forces is in Libya... But, we don't. Now, I HOPE we're supporting democrats, but I don't know. At least Q-Daffy wasn't attacking us. I don't know about the new guys.
We thought Ben Laden was a democrat, and that's why we gave him guns.. Do you want to do the same thing in Libya.
excon
You are perpetrating a false myth about us supporting OBL . It never happened . We never gave weapons to the Arab fighters in Afghanistan.
You supported the uprising in Egypt knowing the Ikhwan would likely dominate a post Mubarack Egypt. Now you are concerned that they may dominate a post-Q~Daffy Libya.Quote:
I ALWAYS support an uprising against a tyrant, unless the people doing the uprising are tyrants themselves...
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Couple things... Yes, we did ARM the mujahideen .
I'm not worried about the Brotherhood, nor am I NOT worried about them. I just don't know. I WISH I knew. I WISH our intelligence service were checking THEM out instead of you and me... I guess not knowing what's going on in the world is the price we pay for spying on OURSELVES.
Oh well.
excon
Addressed this before .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-247746-2.html
Quote:
Bobby let me take this opportunity to correct you about this growing myth that we either favored OBL or created him. The United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs" ;those fighters that came into the Afghan conflict from the Arab world .
the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden .]
Ayman al-Zawahiri (2nd in command to OBL ) , confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding or help .
"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."
"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."
"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ....""Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization."[Knights Under the Prophet's Banner]
I'm pleased to say that despite leading the charge to restrict daffy duck, Australia will not contribute any military forces this time
Hello again,
Ok, now were in... But, what the hell are we supposed to do? There is conflicting policy ALL over the place. Plus, the president is acting WITHOUT congressional approval.
Are we going to make him leave, or is it OK for him to stay? I don't believe in tiptoe war.. Do you?
excon
Ask Evita ;she's running the country.
Isn't it amazing that getting UN approval was more important than getting Congressional ?
The Congressional approval of course is a concern . I'm sure he'll invoke the War Power's Act for the present ;but will ,if he intends to see this through,need
Congressional support .
Consider also that for the Iraq war there was a Congressional Resolution ,and President Bush had a multinational force of 30 nations and 19 more that participated in non-combat roles .
This coalition of the wiling consists of France ,UK ,USA ,Canada I hear ,Italy ,and the Arab League (which will bow out in the next few days... evidently they didn't know you needed weapons to enforce a no-fly zone).
I got a question... where are the half million progressive protesters on the street yelling 'blood for oil " ? Guess the golf President gets a mulligan.
To me the policy and the goal are clear ,regime change. The President stated it emphatically that is the goal.
Whether that can be achieved by no-fly zones and targeting his military assets from the air is the question. Slobodan Milosevic was brought down from an air campaign ,that is the only example I can provide. Maybe one of these strikes will be a decapitation attack.
I think if it works it will be because the mercenary forces that Q~Daffy mustered will bug out if under enough military pressure.
I think you are forgetting process here Tom and a specific focus, BO has the responsibility to convince your congress, Hilary has the responsibility to convince the UN and your allies. You need to remember you have treaty oblligations which are binding on your nation whatever opinion your congress might hold. Those treaties were made by your congress. No further approval should be necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So if the international community decides there is a rogue nation to be dealt with that is a whole lot better than unilateral or preemptive action. Daffy's argument isn't with the US, at least it wasn't, but with his own rebels. However the use of overwhelming force by principally the US now gives him an argument that the US is pursuing its own objectives here, however much they might be saying they are not leading, etc. He has already played the crusader card and from where I stand he may well be right, the enforced democracy crusade is on the march again.
What treaties ? This isn't a NATO operation . Just because a UN resolution authorizes it doesn't mean participation is mandatory. Your nation is not involved even though your UN guy clearly spoke in favor of it. I don't care what treaty we are involved in . It doesn't trump Constitutional law.
Say what you want about Bush and Iraq. There were multiple UN resolutions ,many more nations in the coalition ,and Congressional approval that was debated before action was taken .
Excon's argument has been that even that wasn't sufficient because there wasn't a formal declaration of war(ie. "we declare war on Libya") . I dispute that .I don't think the Constitution spells out the wording needed in the declaration .But at least Bush recognized his duty to get Congressional approval.
Now , no doubt when the President gets back from Spring Break he'll get around to invoking the constitutionally challenged 'War Power's Act'. When he does that it gives him a 60 day window to either get Congressional approval ,or bug out .
I don't think US involvement will last that long . Hopefully Daffy assumes room temperature by then.
Daffy has understood the implications of another bombing of his compound, seems BO learnt something from his predecessors. The whole thing is a storm in a tea cup that's why we are not going, nothing for a Navy to do, and we don't want a repeat of Trobruk, besides we might have to retake Christmas Island.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Daffy has realised that talk won't cut it this time, I expect he will turn up in VeneZeala or some other God forsaken place where money and guns speak.
There is no glory in this one so I don't expect a repeat of the shores of Tripoli from the US, been there, done that. It only needs a second rate army like the French to wrap this one up, after all it is their oil supply that is in jeopardy
The French would whup Aussie in a fight.
The possibility is they might out gun us but they haven't shown an ability to win many fights. They have shown a predeliction to gather up someoneelse's firepower in LibyaQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Have to agree with that point... plenty examples of so called "Measured responses" being a recipe for disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You go in to win... you don't worry about using a few more weapons than the opposition has. Tieing one arm behind your back to make the fight fair is a concept losers like, and winners never use.
You go in... kick butt and if the so-called "Innocents" don't get out of the way fast enough... then its on them. Because the other side doesn't give a hoot about taking out "innocents".
Hello again,
I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.
Don't get me wrong. I AM for the underdog, and I'd support 'em militarily, too, if only we could change the world by FORCE. I'm just a tad doubtful that we could. So, since we CAN'T, why even dip our toes into the water?
Plus, I'm highly doubtful about the "humanitarian" aspect of this war... If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?
In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?
I haven't even addressed the Constitutional violations this war has engendered, but I WILL as we proceed. This war is absolutely ILLEGAL.
excon
Has he earned his Nobel yet?
I note that many people are for intervention in 'that other place.' Darfur was the popular one a few years ago after the fact ;so was Rhwanda. There are people now who are bemoaning this intervention who say we should've intervened in Congo. If we didn't intervene in Haiti years ago it would've been a negative .(note that the exile Aristide flew back in their this week to make trouble ) .Quote:
If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?
The Ivory Coast has an active humanitarian 'Peace keeping" force on the ground already . When the Israeli's began to pound Hezbollah into submission the world rushed to intervene .
Maybe Jillian Assange has some secret insights he'll reveal.Quote:
I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.
Let's put it this way. The Libyan oil is not consequential enough to be a factor. Yet ,a nation like France ;which led the opposition in the UN to the Iraq war is leading this effort by all accounts.
My guess is that they know something about the Duck and the threat he poses to lead the charge.
BTW . The US went into WWI because a civilian transport (a ship ) was destroyed killing Americans .
I'll also repeat something that is pertinent like it or not. The American Revolution would've failed without foreign intervention. Jefferson and Franklin spent the war years desperately looking for funding and military assistance.
The French and Dutch among others came to our assistance. Did it work out for the French ? They ended up in a revolution of their own and a war against the US within 15 years. But I'm sure if you take the long view. It served them well.
Now we have spent the last century promoting the freedom model over the model of tyranny . We have more than once used force to promote it. You yourself have said some of our biggest failures have been when we took a realpolitik view and saw our national interest in status quo and stability .
I don't know. I think the Petraeus Doctrine is being invoked in the strategy... ie protect the civilians .Quote:
In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview.../Petraeus1.pdf
He doesn't recommend a heavy foot print because liberation armies quicky become occupation armies . You need to assist them towards their goal of liberation.
Or as Lawrence of Arabia said :
Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is. It may take them longer and it may not be as good as you think, but if it is theirs, it will be better.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't dislike it. It's just apples, when we're talking about oranges... Jefferson and Franklin were PROVEN democrats. When France invested in us, the outcome was predictable... France was NOT guessing.
Here's what YOU don't like. If our intelligence services were spying on the Lybyan's instead of YOU and ME, maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone.
excon
.Quote:
maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone
I'd say the same applies to Egypt.Actually worse because we knew ahead of time the likely outcome would be the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This weekend's vote in Egypt confirms that they will play a huge role in future Egyptian leadership.
As far as I can tell the only consistent policy until now was that if the people had an uprising against nations we have friendly relationships with ;it's a good thing worthy of our support . If it's a nation that has been hostile for the last 3 decades then we should just butt out .
I take the opposite logic. If the nation has an authoritarian leadership that is hostile to us ,it advances our security to support the people when they rise up regardless of what the future may bring.
We are late to this game. Palin was calling for no fly zones when Daffy was shooting the Libyan people protesting with his air assets.
However ;I am leaning towards agreement with you on the Constitutional issue.
This whole thing is typical american overkill, instaed of enforcing a no fly zone which can be done by shooting down any offending aircraft the military led by the US has opted for destroying the country's military capability. What are they afraid of? Some obsolete aircraft and air defence systems? The Libyian navy?
I can understand enforcing a cease fire but no one has mentioned that beyond the first day and it can't be done without ground forces. As soon as Daffy's forces were chastised for continued fighting the rebels attempted to consoldate previous gains, so cease fire wasn't in their plans. This is a one sided battle and the UN may as well issue an ultimatium now. Daffy would do well to remember what happened the last time a regime threatened the US with arming the population and fight to the death
As far as I can tell ,the only consistent goal articulated has been Obama's call for Daffy and sons to leave(after Obama did his obligatory Hamlet-like waffling ) . If it was being done for civilian protection then it would've been implemented in February.
I have no problem with regime change. But shouldn't helping the rebellion begun back around the time of this op ,when the regime was on the ropes ?
It actually has more to do with destroying command and control and ground radar and weapons tracking abilities. Otherwise anyone flying (our people at this point) is at risk to anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missles. And is SOP when establishing a No-fly zone as a result.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Not overkill. Overkill would have been carpet bombing the entire country as a precursor to a no-fly zone being established.
We are also targeting his ground based armor.. T-72 tanks etc. Hope there is some special forces on the ground to coordinate rebel movements with the strategic bombing.
But there are no american troops involved, BO said so, so it must be right. This thing is beginning to look like a CIA operationQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
This is a disaster for the US, in more ways that I can mention... But, I'll mention a few.
Obama is, at the VERY least, legally required to NOTIFY congress of his intention to take the nation to war. He sent a letter AFTER he invaded. It's a big mistake. It makes the war unconstitutional.
We went in to SAVE people from extermination. If we DON'T take Kaddafy out, what makes us think they won't be exterminated when we leave??
Therefore, the in and out is BS. The NO ground troops is BS.
If we're so interested in saving people from their brutal dictator, why aren't we saving the Baharanians, the Syrians, or the Yemeni's? We're not because Obama is LYING. Kucinnich is right. Obama should be impeached.
excon
I agree with most of what you say about the end game. Daffy has to go . It can be done w/o US ground troops or a very small foot print as long as there is no occupation at the end.
You are correct in that Obama blew it big time by committing without Congressional authorization. Not sure that it makes the move unconstitutional(we have had limited interventions in the past without Congressional approval) ;but it would've been the right thing to do politically . He would've gotten the support of the Kerry Democrats and most of the Republicans .It would've been a bi-partisan international policy.
I think there are some people in his circle of advisors ;Evita , Samantha Power ,Susan Rice who have led him to this decision. His male advisors did not want to do this action. Power has been long outspoken in favor of 'humanitarian ' intervention.
Despite the denials ,it was apparent before the intervention began that regime change is the only acceptable outcome the President will accept .
Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy | STRATFOR
It is an interesting evolution. He became President (or at least the Democrat candidate ) by being the candidate who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning (at least that was his narrative... hard to say what he would've done if he was in the US Senate at the time instead of the Illinois Senate .)
When speaking of his opposition he said :
"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."
Remove Saddam's name from this and replace it with Daffy and the contradiction is obvious. Iraq was the "wrong 'war ,the "dumb "war .
Maybe if there was a 1 year build up to the conflict ,with the forging of a real coalition ,taking his case to the people ,securing Congressional ,AND UN relevent authorizations ,perhaps the President would've had the opportunity to make his case to the American people .......that's what President Bush did in his "rush to war".
That's right ,the libs said there was a 'rush to war'. They called it 'unilateral' even though the active and supporting allies numbered close to 50 nations . Even though there were 17 supporting UN resolutions ,they said the US was "thumbing it's nose" at the "international community" .
Where are the 100's of thousand anti-war protesters ?
Kucinich ,Michael Moore and Ralph Nadar are the ones out there with the 'No blood for oil' signs and the paper mache puppet heads.
Hello again, tom:
Because Obama was able to accomplish in a couple weeks, what it took Bush a year or more to do, doesn't change the wrongheadedness of EITHER war.
One of your favorite libs, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post answered my previous inquiry about why NOT those other country's. Here's what he said:
"Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not.. .
Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power."
He's right on. Impeach Obama!
excon
Perhaps . He excluded Syria and Iran ;both nations I'd welcome regime change AND have attacked and killed Americans AND have all but declared war on the US (as has Daffy over the course of 40 years ) . Truth is that libs like Robinson like it when America's friends get defeated and deplore it when America's enemies lose.
Bahrain is a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia.
Ex, your neocon president has finally decided the goal in Libya is regime change. He won't say it in so many words but that's the goal, "installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”
The Obama Doctrine says that if the "international community " says it's OK to do a regime change or a 'humanitarian intervention ', then US troops can be committed ;as long as we can pretend we aren't taking the lead. To him ,it is a must to get 'legal authority ' 1st from the UN .It's also evidently OK to ignore the constitutional requirements of getting legal authority from Congress.
When the UN gives the go ahead to take out Israel ,he'll go along ,so long as a nation like Iran takes the command.
More than 50% of the people would like Obama to be out of office... will HE leave?
To be replaced by whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
To be determined... but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. And is pretty good at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yeah I know constitutionally that's not how it works.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 PM. |