 |
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If the protesters were burning American flags, or saying death to America, or burning Obama in effigy, I'd agree with you. But, they aren't. It looks, to ME, like a homegrown upwelling of a people throwing off the yoke of oppression... To you, it looks the beginning of our worst nightmare... I'm just not sure how our influence in the arena is going to benefit us.
excon
Assuming that the old guard dictatorship/kingdom models both fall (no guarantees there ),the question is what are they replaced with ? That is where our influence I believe will matter .It's still an open conflict between modernism and jihadist Islamism .
I see maybe one or two winner states emerging out of the ummah . Either the Iran model will be the template ,or if we are lucky,Turkey... the return of the Ottomans .
You talk of the President "understanding " ? What I see is him throwing some jabs as he disengages.
Hello again,
Well, Obama's war would have worked out, if war can be worked out. But, it can't. The rebels are in retreat. If we went in to save them from being slaughtered, what's our next move? Arm them? Send our guy's in? Let 'em be slaughtered?
This has the makings of another LONG Mideast war that we had NO business getting into.
excon
Hello again,
Ach... No wonder Obamas war can't be worked out. It's NOT a war, after all. According to Sarah Palin, it's a squirmish.
excon
I think that Obama is now asking for that... but it's not the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why didn't we do something when so many in Uganda were killed years ago?
The bottom line is that we cannot police the world. Bad stuff happens in many countries. We Americans cannot be the Police of the world.
Quote:
I think that Obama is now asking for that... but it's not the issue.
Why didn't we do something when so many in Uganda were killed years ago?
Had he acted at the time of this posting I believe much of this would've been avoided .
I still think there is a good chance that Daffy will go into exile .
I think the thing that is preventing it is his memory of Charles Taylor making an exile deal... the world renaged and now he sits in a jail in the Hague .
No one is asking we police the world. I have been clear (forget which response on this or other similar ops) that my bottom line is we should go against dictators who have also sponsored terrorism or directly attacked us. Daffy is guilty of both.
I am hearing that the US used ground clearing A-10s in the 'no fly zone' .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
My original op was for protection of demonstrators . This goes far beyond what I called for ,and the UN mandate (which now appears to be the final arbiter for US military deployment).
I'm hearing the Russians and other nations that did not vote for the no -fly zone ,but did not veto it ,did so because there was an assurance that the US would not attack ground forces combatting the rebels ,and would stick to a narrow mandate of civilian protection.
Man, those Democrats are sounding an awful lot like those neocons.
Obama Authorizes Secret Help for Libya Rebels
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.Dianne Feinstein says we have 3 options - go in and arrest him, move him to another country or, "meeting the same fate that, that Saddam Hussein met." "I don't know how you solve this problem with a recalcitrant leader who isn't going to quit at this point," she said.
When is Rep. Lynn "Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy" Woolsey going to rally her Code Pinksters to fire up the anti-war masses?
In that article,
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
"I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."
They are already there on the ground. You don't go into a NO-FLY into an area until you have enough intelligence to give specific targeting directions. Otherwise you are going to have to blow up a lot of stuff that doesn't need blown up in the process of getting to the stuff you NEED to blow up.
But then yet again... the left publicises something that really needed to remain a secret until the operations are over.
But a publicity stunt apparently means more than the lives of operatives still on the ground to this administration.
I'm glad I'M not one of those operatives right now. Not that I'd have any chance of blending in, in the first place.
Yeah well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Now that we've cleared that up, which of Feinstein's solutions do you favor?Quote:
The CIA has placed covert operatives on the ground in Libya to gather intelligence for air strikes and reach out to rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi's loyalists. Yesterday Reuters reported that President Obama had signed a secret order called a "finding" — the first step in authorizing a clandestine CIA mission. But officials now say it's been underway for weeks. When Obama first addressed the country about enforcing the U.N. resolution a little under two weeks ago, one of the parameters for U.S. involvement was no ground troops. Even as the coalition moved under NATO's leadership, Obama has insisted that the U.S. military will not deploy ground troops to Libya. Nonetheless, small groups of CIA operatives have been communicating and vetting rebels for weeks, "as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military," officials told the New York Times. The apparently not-so-secret finding was signed earlier this month.
Of course . Someone had to be on the ground to direct the air campaign.Quote:
But officials now say it's been underway for weeks.
I figured it out . The President says there will be no 'boots on the ground.' He sent in the CIA wearing sandals .
"Sneakers, they're wearing sneakers, not boots," said John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think-tank . "That's how they're clandestine."
Hello wingers:
I hear you complaining, but me theenks it's only because its OBAMA doing it. You wanted him to go in, now you don't like what going in involves... Sounds like Iraq all over again.
excon
What's good for the goose...
I just know if this were Bush all hell would be breaking loose from the left. It is they who are the hypocrites because it's Obama.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
There's SOME of them, of course... But the lefty YOU'RE dealing with is even handed, brilliant and good looking to boot.
excon
Any bets on who is the first NATO force to high-tail it out of there when things get really heated up?
Hello K:
I don't know. The French? The Arab League?? What's important, is who's going to be LEFT to do the dirty work, and that, my friend, is going to be US.
excon
PS> (edited) Uhhh, the Arab League ain't in NATO - but you get my meaning..
Ding,ding,ding, winner,winner,chicken dinner!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ex, I can't comment on how good looking you are, but you're pretty even handed.
What I want to know is, how do I start that many people with only 3 bench slots?
I have yet to be critical of the decision to enforce a no-fly zone.
I'm not even critical of CIA being on the ground . They should be .
That is the nature of precision bombing .
I hope his secret order includes orders to Get Daffy... maybe a rendition if possible. I also think that the Senate and House need to make regime change America's official policy toward Libya... and the sooner the better .
I think he bungled it out of the gate and doesn't really understand why he made this call. (he thinks he does ,but he really doesn't. All he really understands is working the urban streets agitating )
1.He went in too late (by 3 weeks)
2. He did not make his case to Congress ;he made a muddled incoherent case to the American people 2 weeks in to our participation
3. He only felt justified in committing forces when other nations and international institutions gave him the OK.
4. He really has no idea what he wants to accomplish . The problem is that he is not like GW Bush who had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and put it on the table for all to see.
Hello again, Steve:
You have enough players to man every position, and the bench is who's left over.
About, Libya, though. We should NOT have gone in. Smoothy and I agree. KBC too.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't disagree about Obama.. I don't even disagree about Bush... They were both WRONG about their wars. It took Obama 31 days to be wrong. It took Bush over a year and much study to be wrong.
Who's worse? Who cares?
excon
I know what the bench is goofy... I'm just a football guy. But am I starting 9 pitchers?
On Libya, I totally agree with tom.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahh, you rotate 'em.. I don't know if they're physically assigned to the bench or the bull pen. Going to have to wait till Tuesday, when Felix Hernandez throws a no hitter, and he's on MY team.
excon
Uh, the roster settings show 9 starting pitchers. In fantasy football that would be like 9 starting QB's.
As I recall there is a max amount of innings you can use your pitchers for during the season.
You can go to
Fantasy Baseball Probable Pitchers : Fantasy News
To find out which starters to put in your lineup daily .
You fill in the rest of the pitching slots with relievers.
All I know is it says starting pitchers, 9, which to me means I need 9 pitchers plus backups. What am I missing?
Hello again, Steve:
Well, you don't start 5 outfielders either, so I can't tell you what's going on.
excon
You're the man, you have to make the settings work, brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve
What I can tell you is this. You have 22 starters, but when you fill in your roster, only 9 players will actually "start". It'll become obvious when we start playing...
SAVES do count, so some of your "starting" pitchers have to be relievers...
excon
Here is the rules. Just checked... the league is set for MAX 200 games started . But you need some relievers on your roster also because 'saves' counts.
Quote:
PITCHERS
ESPN Fantasy Baseball provides nine pitcher slots. You may use any combination of Starters and Relievers. However, keep in mind that there are limits for games started by your Active Starters as a whole. For more information on Pitching Limits, click here.
NOTE: The utility slot may NOT be filled with a pitcher.
Total Roster Size: 25+1 (13 Batters, 9 Pitchers, 3 Bench, +1 DL)
Batters (13): C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, OF, OF, OF, OF, 2B/SS, 1B/3B, UTIL
Pitchers (9): P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P
Bench (3): BE, BE, BE
Disabled List (1): DL
All right, I'll figure it out. Just trying to get a draft strategy since I won't be joining you.
Hello again, Steve:
Pick Cy Young award winners, closers and batters. Defensive stats don't count. Since there's only a few teams, there'll be PLENTY of good players that'll be available AFTER the draft. You take 'em off waivers.
excon
I love the waiver wires.
I just checked my stats from the last year's league .
You can have pitchers or position players on your bench.
Some strategery . When I came close to Max wins ,I added relievers who could pad some of the other pitching stats .
Do they play baseball in Libya?
Hello clete:
Do you have a stick up your a$$?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM. |