I was wrong about President Obama

[Vast LWC]

So now you're just arguing the degree of casualties after the fact. Not a good argument.

No, I'm pointing out that there are smart ways of going about things like this, and stupid ways.

"Smart" being reaching the desired ends with a minimum of American lives lost.

You also seem to be justifying military action based on a humanitarian cause in the case of Libya but holding onto the canard of "fabrication" with Iraq, ignoring that the very same humanitarian justification works there too.

The Humanitarian cause in Iraq would have been best served by stopping Hussein from killing his own people to begin with, instead of arming him to the teeth for all those years so he could fight the Iranians for us.

The Iraqi "No-Fly" zone was in fact stopping Hussein from carrying out any mass killings, and was therefore serving the humanitarian interest. There was no need to invade the country for that reason, which is why Bush and company made up all kinds of other BS justifications.

(Never my justification, by the way)

All I can say, as someone who could have very easily been one of the 29 US bullet catchers, I'd rather risk my life and maybe die for an actual reason. Somalia wasn't much of a reason. Wish I'd been able to be part of taking out Saddam.

A half a million people dead and 1.5 million more homeless and starving was not a good reason?

The warlord that we were going after was stealing the food the UN was trying to give to starving Somalis. How is that not a good reason to go take him out?

 

[boedicca]

Liberals are truly capable of cognitive dissonance. They pretend that Obama's war in Libya is not really about oil when we all know that it is. There is nothing "humanitarian" about it. It is to protect European oil interests.

Can't wait for the lefty chorus to begin chanting and protesting " blood for oil" and "obama lied, children died" etc etc....oh wait.....he's a democrat- never mind!

Oil going to Europeans is good because their gasoline costs over $8 per gallon.

It's Cheap Gas for Americans that's EVUL.

 

[asterism]

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

The terrorists that will replace him.

And people point to Iraq because most of the same people who are criticizing Obama for this were supporters of the Iraq war.

I'm not criticizing Obama. As I said, I don't see how this is strategically better for us. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for "ignoring" Saddam's killing people, the correct time to attack would have been WHEN SADDAM WAS KILLING PEOPLE, not years afterwards, when it was too late to help anyone.

How about supporting Palestinian terrorists by promising to pay their families and actually doing so? He was doing that at the time of the invasion.

In fact, unless I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, I specifically remember someone having a "No-Fly zone" over northern Iraq specifically to stop said killing, and it was quite effective.

In Kurdistan. Not so much in Al-Anbar.

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

The person who thought there was a strategic threat. I happen to agree with that. I'm not sure in the case of Libya, but then again the invasion of Iraq was not replacing Saddam with Al Qaeda. Ousting Qaddaffi is. That still may be the best move, I just don't see how and the President hasn't explained that to us.

 

[asterism]

So now you're just arguing the degree of casualties after the fact. Not a good argument.

No, I'm pointing out that there are smart ways of going about things like this, and stupid ways.

"Smart" being reaching the desired ends with a minimum of American lives lost.

Somalia was that? Um, no.

You also seem to be justifying military action based on a humanitarian cause in the case of Libya but holding onto the canard of "fabrication" with Iraq, ignoring that the very same humanitarian justification works there too.

The Humanitarian cause in Iraq would have been best served by stopping Hussein from killing his own people to begin with, instead of arming him to the teeth for all those years so he could fight the Iranians for us.

Ah. That could be correct, but since G.W. Bush wasn't the President at the time there really wasn't any way he could have made that choice. He had to deal with the situation he was given, just like the current President.

The Iraqi "No-Fly" zone was in fact stopping Hussein from carrying out any mass killings, and was therefore serving the humanitarian interest. There was no need to invade the country for that reason, which is why Bush and company made up all kinds of other BS justifications.

Not true, but if you don't believe that now you probably never will.

(Never my justification, by the way)

All I can say, as someone who could have very easily been one of the 29 US bullet catchers, I'd rather risk my life and maybe die for an actual reason. Somalia wasn't much of a reason. Wish I'd been able to be part of taking out Saddam.

A half a million people dead and 1.5 million more homeless and starving was not a good reason?

Not if we were going to get shot at get a few of us killed and then haul ass out of there without actually accomplishing anything. Those homeless and starving people were still homeless and starving as soon as we left Somalia. So what was the point?

At least Iraq is one of the more stable Arab nations these days.

The warlord that we were going after was stealing the food the UN was trying to give to starving Somalis. How is that not a good reason to go take him out?

Because we didn't take him out. He was more powerful (and thereby able to control even more food and resources) after we pulled out in October 1993. He (and Bin Laden) got a victory as well as a successful strategy. I'm not sure of your opinion but I do not think giving them an example of the U.S. being a "paper tiger" was a wise move.

Time will tell on how things go in Libya, but like I said they aren't putting the 22nd MEU off the coast of Libya to for shits and giggles. If a ground invasion was completely off the table they'd not have a ground invasion force steaming towards there, early, to wait for further orders mere miles away from a feasible point of attack.

 

[Vast LWC]

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

The terrorists that will replace him.

Replacing a known terrorist, who hates us, with people who may or may not include some terrorists, who will be grateful to us...

Sounds like a better situation to me. Certainly not perfect, but better.

And people point to Iraq because most of the same people who are criticizing Obama for this were supporters of the Iraq war.

I'm not criticizing Obama. As I said, I don't see how this is strategically better for us. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

See above.

How about supporting Palestinian terrorists by promising to pay their families and actually doing so? He was doing that at the time of the invasion.

In fact, unless I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, I specifically remember someone having a "No-Fly zone" over northern Iraq specifically to stop said killing, and it was quite effective.

In Kurdistan. Not so much in Al-Anbar.

As far as I know, the mass killings were occurring in Kurdistan. I am unaware of mass killing in Al-Anbar during the no-fly zone period.

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

The person who thought there was a strategic threat. I happen to agree with that. I'm not sure in the case of Libya, but then again the invasion of Iraq was not replacing Saddam with Al Qaeda. Ousting Qaddaffi is. That still may be the best move, I just don't see how and the President hasn't explained that to us.

The invasion of Iraq is replacing Hussein with a brand spanking new close ally of Iran. And as far as I can tell, Iran hates America as much as Al Qaeda does.

And as far as "replacing Qaddaffi with Al Qaeda is concerned, there is no definitive proof that that will be the case at all. The only thing I've seen is that some of the rebels may also have links to Al Qaeda, not that the rebellion is being LED by Al Qaeda.

The exact same thing was said about the Eqyptian revolt and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood does not seem to be trying to grab power there.

 

[asterism]

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

The terrorists that will replace him.

Replacing a known terrorist, who hates us, with people who may or may not include some terrorists, who will be grateful to us...

Sounds like a better situation to me. Certainly not perfect, but better.

So arming Saddam against Iran wasn't perfect either right? You're making my case for me. Also, you forget how quickly "grateful" disappears. The Mujahadeen led by Osama Bin Laden were grateful. How'd that one work out?

See above.

I really hope that isn't the logic. Beyond that, I hope the actual logic is shared.

As far as I know, the mass killings were occurring in Kurdistan. I am unaware of mass killing in Al-Anbar during the no-fly zone period.

Unaware or just not looking?

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

The person who thought there was a strategic threat. I happen to agree with that. I'm not sure in the case of Libya, but then again the invasion of Iraq was not replacing Saddam with Al Qaeda. Ousting Qaddaffi is. That still may be the best move, I just don't see how and the President hasn't explained that to us.

The invasion of Iraq is replacing Hussein with a brand spanking new close ally of Iran. And as far as I can tell, Iran hates America as much as Al Qaeda does.

The circle is complete. So the Iraqi government is a "close ally" (your words) of Iran so that's bad in your view because Iran hates us as much as Al Qaeda, who are allies of whom in Libya?

And as far as "replacing Qaddaffi with Al Qaeda is concerned, there is no definitive proof that that will be the case at all. The only thing I've seen is that some of the rebels may also have links to Al Qaeda, not that the rebellion is being LED by Al Qaeda.

Okie dokie. I disagree.

The exact same thing was said about the Eqyptian revolt and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood does not seem to be trying to grab power there.

No need to grab it anymore, they've already got it. That said, I think Obama did the right thing in Egypt. Can't make worse enemies if we don't pick sides and there was no strategic gain in doing so.


But about that humanitarian thing.... Didn't a whole bunch of people get slaughtered in Egypt? Why yes they did.

 

[Lasher]

I was wrong about President Obama

Let us call a spade, a spade. Let us call a group of armed marauding thugs, committing acts of terrorism and arson, terrorists and arsonists and let us call those who manipulate the words of others to justify their actions, barefaced liars. President Obama is one of these and how wrong I was to believe that he represented a new America.
How wrong I was. I praised the American people for not playing the race card in the last election because I am not a racist. My oldest son's four grandparents were born in four countries in three continents and how wonderful that is. But let us call a spade, let's tell the truth and not invent lies to hide behind. The fact is, the west got the entire Libya story wrong.

Your oldest son has different grandparents than your other children? How so?


Fact: There is a tremendous amount of support for Colonel Muammar Al-Qathafi in Libya. Fact: Libyans enjoy the highest human development indices in Africa. Fact: in 1951, Libya was the poorest country in the world.

Moreso than Haiti?


Fact: the rebellion in Benghazi began with armed groups of thugs perpetrating massacres and acts of terrorism, against unarmed civilians.

Fact: I praised President Barack Obama for his new and fresh and very welcome stance on international relations. How wrong I was. Let us call a spade, a spade.

He's the ace of spades.



Call him a lawyer? He is a liar. A cheap, unadulterated, disgusting, barefaced liar. He purposefully misinterpreted the words of Muammar Al-Qathafi, claiming that he had threatened his people with violence.

Obama's Zionist masters and handlers (puppeteers) can make him do anything.


He did not.

He said that he would give a window for terrorist elements to lay down their arms and then said he would be implacable in punishing those who did not. How Barack Obama can claim the opposite defies logic. The only conclusion I can make is that Barack Obama is either a snivelling yellow-bellied coward who does what he is told by the Clinton (War Zone) lobby or else he is a sham

He is both, and what you call the Clinton (war zone) lobby is just Zionists who rule American politics and most other facets of our lives.

 

[Lasher]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

Why? Are they going to be more humanitarian than Gaddafi? How can anyone tell? Why is it any of our business, anyway? We are a broke country, yet we are paying for all the M.E. wars. Could it be because of our "gallant little ally," Israel?

 

[Lasher]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

Should we back just the forces that have the most support? Why?

 

[Lasher]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty fucking asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. Fuck Qaddafi and fuck his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

And fuck Israel and Zionism.

 

[Vast LWC]

So arming Saddam against Iran wasn't perfect either right? You're making my case for me. Also, you forget how quickly "grateful" disappears. The Mujahadeen led by Osama Bin Laden were grateful. How'd that one work out?

No, it wasn't, but we KNEW Saddam was a crazy fucktard. We have no clue who will lead these Libyan rebels, we just have a bunch of talking heads making assumptions, and you know what happens when we assume.

And it's your position that we should have left the USSR in charge of Afghanistan?

I really hope that isn't the logic. Beyond that, I hope the actual logic is shared.

Unaware or just not looking?

The circle is complete. So the Iraqi government is a "close ally" (your words) of Iran so that's bad in your view because Iran hates us as much as Al Qaeda, who are allies of whom in Libya?

Okie dokie. I disagree.

Excellent. Please feel free to present us with a cross section of the rebel population, along with appropriate source material. I'm sure you must have the numbers on hand in order to be able to determine the exact makeup of the rebel force.

No need to grab it anymore, they've already got it. That said, I think Obama did the right thing in Egypt. Can't make worse enemies if we don't pick sides and there was no strategic gain in doing so.

Wow. So now you have a rather interesting determination on who will be ruling Eqypt also. That's truly amazing. Post those numbers too, if you would.

But about that humanitarian thing.... Didn't a whole bunch of people get slaughtered in Egypt? Why yes they did.

102 people dead in a successful revolution? That's a very small number. How many revolutions can boast only 102 people killed? Very few I imagine.

 

[Lasher]

I was wrong about President Obama

Let us call a spade, a spade. Let us call a group of armed marauding thugs, committing acts of terrorism and arson, terrorists and arsonists and let us call those who manipulate the words of others to justify their actions, barefaced liars. President Obama is one of these and how wrong I was to believe that he represented a new America.
How wrong I was. I praised the American people for not playing the race card in the last election because I am not a racist. My oldest son's four grandparents were born in four countries in three continents and how wonderful that is. But let us call a spade, let's tell the truth and not invent lies to hide behind. The fact is, the west got the entire Libya story wrong.

Fact: There is a tremendous amount of support for Colonel Muammar Al-Qathafi in Libya. Fact: Libyans enjoy the highest human development indices in Africa. Fact: in 1951, Libya was the poorest country in the world. Fact: the rebellion in Benghazi began with armed groups of thugs perpetrating massacres and acts of terrorism, against unarmed civilians.

Fact: I praised President Barack Obama for his new and fresh and very welcome stance on international relations. How wrong I was. Let us call a spade, a spade. Call him a lawyer? He is a liar. A cheap, unadulterated, disgusting, barefaced liar. He purposefully misinterpreted the words of Muammar Al-Qathafi, claiming that he had threatened his people with violence.

He did not.

He said that he would give a window for terrorist elements to lay down their arms and then said he would be implacable in punishing those who did not. How Barack Obama can claim the opposite defies logic. The only conclusion I can make is that Barack Obama is either a snivelling yellow-bellied coward who does what he is told by the Clinton (War Zone) lobby or else he is a sham
.

read more:

I was wrong about President Obama - English pravda.ru

Ouch.

As fucked up as Obama is, even I wouldn't call him a spade. Racist.

Some folks see racism everywhere.

 

[Lasher]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

About as likely as that being you in your avatar.

 

[Lasher]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Politics and altruism rarely comingle.

What a cynic you are!

Cynicism is a safe bet today in this world.

 

[Lasher]

Politics and altruism rarely comingle.

What a cynic you are!

I'm merely a student of politics and human nature. Politics attracts the most selfish self centered individuals of our society. Particularly those who are willing to win at any cost.

True altruism comes from individuals and private groups that provide charity for their local communities. That's why freedom is so important. So we have the chance to voluntarily provide for our fellow man. We have the privilege to serve others. When governments try to "help" people it comes through violence. Altruism and violence are also rarely, if ever, intertwined.

I believe in empowering individuals and removing power from governments to the extent where we can peacefully coexist without anarchy. It's in the people that my hope is. The government causes far more problems than it fixes. And I foresee a day when we will all realize that this Libya conflict was a huge mistake. I think the reprocussions could be much greater than any of us can currently see.

"Repercussions."

 

[Lasher]

What a cynic you are!

I'm merely a student of politics and human nature. Politics attracts the most selfish self centered individuals of our society. Particularly those who are willing to win at any cost.

True altruism comes from individuals and private groups that provide charity for their local communities. That's why freedom is so important. So we have the chance to voluntarily provide for our fellow man. We have the privilege to serve others. When governments try to "help" people it comes through violence. Altruism and violence are also rarely, if ever, intertwined.

I believe in empowering individuals and removing power from governments to the extent where we can peacefully coexist without anarchy. It's in the people that my hope is. The government causes far more problems than it fixes. And I foresee a day when we will all realize that this Libya conflict was a huge mistake. I think the reprocussions could be much greater than any of us can currently see.

Surely some people go into politics for the purest of motives?

Well, yes, Adolf Hitler did.

 

[Lasher]

Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep

That doesn't prove anything. These are the same people that parroted Bush Admin lies about Al Qeada in Iraq.

Is that your idea of a reply?

 

[Lasher]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Is there any possibility that the moon is made out of green cheese?

Explain why it isn't possible?

Because the astronauts who landed on it didn't report it being green cheese?

 

[Lasher]

Leaders who have real support of the people do not need to call upon foreign mercenaries to keep them in office.

Except the POPE of course,

I thought it was foreign mercenaries who are fighting the Libyan forces.

 

[Lasher]

I was wrong about President Obama

Let us call a spade, a spade.

I praised the American people for not playing the race card in the last election because I am not a racist.

But let us call a spade....

Ouch.

"Ouch", indeed!!

Even a Russian should have access to the Internet, and understand......if he wants to be a recognized-member of the International Brotherhood O' Teabaggers....he needs to remember to say:

"Some o' my best-friends are Black!!"

​

Still at it with the gaudy, silly sig, eh?