Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

Please enter a longer topic. It must be longer than two letters

longprime · Guru

In and out of the Zone.

pima · Guru

RE: No Fly Zone

Razorsharp · Guru

I am hoping the Republicans will de-fund the operation and we can get out of there soon.

longprime · Guru

RE: No Fly Zone

I need that fly zone. It takes too much time to get it out without that fly, evileye

Which is why we have aircraft carriers evileye

BigG · Guru

President O. don't need no stinkin Congressional approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html

President Clinton has impeachment proceeedings started over a sexual piccadillo.

President Obama kills people in the official military of a foreign country and civilians as collateral damage and no one says anything.

Double standard?

soccerguy315 · Guru

at least the Old Boss got permission from Congress...

the new guy is having some issues with the War Powers Act, though no one in Congress seems especially interested.

BigG · Guru

Libyan intervention entering a new phase:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=TX-PAR-NTC98&show_article=1

Somehow I do not think the new phase will be withdrawal.

You just know a government that is handed the country by the "Western Powers" is going to be percieved as legitimate.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

catahoula · Guru

The latest I could find from googling Codepink + Libya suggests the outrage peaked sometime around late March and they've been content with passing the bong around ever since.

Carrying it to the polls in '12 may raise a few eyebrows but they can probably find a doctor to write 'em up a script.

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 13th of May 2011 08:56:36 PM

BigG · Guru

US mission is "open ended":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

The forever war, its not just fiction anymore.

soccerguy315 · Guru

we also bombed a school for disabled children (lucky no one was there)

Razorsharp · Guru

We killed one of Gadaffi's sons and some of his grandchildren. I actually feel sorry for Gadaffi.

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Saturday 30th of April 2011 06:57:20 PM

john doe · Guru

We should get together with the Chinese and Russians - and divy up the world particularly the mideast and their oil into thirds.

BigG · Guru

Mission creep in Libya:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gaddafi-calls-for-ceasefire-as-nato-strikes-tripoli/2011/04/30/AFWPndKF_story.html

Just defending those civilians...

BigG · Guru

It has become patently obvious to the meanest intelligence that we have to "roll up our sleeves" and conquer the whole dam planet, completely subsume the local cultures and religions into our own, and collect tribute to pay for services rendered.

"Yes you can be Muslim, but you have to be a relatively tolerant American style Muslim."

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

Just as I thought, influx of moslem refugees play a role in this war, but I am sure oil plays a bigger role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8468981/France-threatens-to-suspend-Schengen-Treaty.html

catahoula · Guru

What about Nigeria?

Plucky freedom fighters are only worth backing if they are of the same religion as their democracy hating foes?

BigG · Guru

What about Syria? 75 read and counting, unarmed protestors against heavily armed troops,...

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

I am still waiting for a good explanation for the way we treat Bahrain vs Libya. Why the double standard?

Razorsharp · Guru

It would be nice if we could get the "rebels" to take control of the oil, sell the oil and then have them finance the cost of the operation, or at least pay for their own weapons. Last I heard they were close to some oil wells.

BigG · Guru

Apparently we have money to "free" the Libyans but not for health insurance or job creation for our own people.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/21/obama-approves-use-predator-drones-libya/

BigG · Guru

Who is paying for the bombs, missiles, fuel, maintenance on aircraft, pilot salaries, ship lubricants, chow, and etc.?

NATO?

I thought we were running a deficit.

Every nickel spent on the "rebels" comes out of our grandchildren's flesh.

The "needs" of the Libyan al-Queda proteges are trumping the needs of our own poor and elderly.

We owe the "rebels" nothing. When push comes to shove, we owe NATO, France and Great Britain nothing.

Bring the troops home, close the borders and nuke anyone who does anything we do not like.

"Boots on the ground" are just a way to stroke the egos of the high command.

-- Edited by BigG on Thursday 14th of April 2011 06:03:18 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

btw... US is not bombing Libya.

But, US plans under NATO command are bombing Libya.

just so that is clear.

BigG · Guru

BigG wrote:
Obviously the "ceasefire" is just a pretext to get us to commit to" boots on the ground" to police same.
Then, when it inevitably falls apart, we have to whack Gadaffi in order to hand the country to a minority al-Queda linked group.
Just how stupid are the American people?
And our idiot leaders?
Stupid enough to borrow money to start yet a third war.
I think we should have a firm policy regarding foreign military adventures: If we don't get paid, we don't do ****.

BigG · Guru

Obviously the "ceasefire" is just a pretext to get us to commit to" boots on the ground" to police same.

Then, when it inevitably falls apart, we have to whack Gadaffi in order to hand the country to a minority al-Queda linked group.

Just how stupid are the American people?

And our idiot leaders?

soccerguy315 · Guru

possible ceasefire: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1686584.ece

not sure exactly what goal a ceasefire achieves, but we will see what happens.

soccerguy315 · Guru

US ground troops may be considered: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

Apparently no one told NATO that the rebels have tanks. Just for the sake of clarity, I, soccerguy315, was aware that the rebels had tanks. My only source of information is the news. Does NATO not have someone monitoring open sources? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/world/africa/09libya.html?_r=3&hp

longprime · Guru

Two thing will happen when elephants fly.

1) They win an election on the peace vote.

2) They permanently give up corn and oil subsidies and remove tariffs on fuel alcohol.

longprime · Guru

two things that will happen when elephants fly.

1) they win an election buy the peace vote.

2) they permanently remove subsidies to corn, remove tariffs on cotton and fuel alcohol.

catahoula · Guru

Well, the humanitarian angle seems a little too skinny to cover efforts to ensure that, if not winning, the rebels at least remain an opposing force to Quadaffi... the guy we refuse to target, even while arguing he's cousin to the devil himself.

Leaving the cynical view, the one that doesn't really have to be articulated in a campaign since its so darn obvious.

BigG · Guru

This century the American people only respect and support a President who starts his wars from scratch.

This pathetic attempt to piggyback on an on-going civil war just won't work.

When President O. realizes this, watch out Norway!

john doe · Guru

That's a pretty cynical way of describing our President's actions and definitely not the way to win in 2012.

catahoula · Guru

Is "intervening in a civil war to support the re-election chances of a sitting president" too unkind a way to describe all this?

BigG · Guru

Straw man or trial balloon for "boots on the ground" in Libya:

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

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

If this is all about oil, and I believe it is, then this quote from Victor Hugo is prophetic:

Before history, one of the two bandits will be called France; the other will be called England. But I protest, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity! the crimes of those who lead are not the fault of those who are led; Governments are sometimes bandits, peoples never.

http://www.modernghana.com/news/203909/1/is-it-not-time-to-fulfil-victor-hugos-wish-comment.html

I guess things have not really changed, has it?

BigG · Guru

Having thought about it and having read a few popular articles,
I have to conclude Colonel Gaddafi probably does not think in terms of "attacking his own people".

He was and is suppressing tribes that are a danger to his and allied tribes.

Much has been made of his "show no mercy" quote. Why should he show mercy to armed rebels? Look what our own government did at Waco and other places.

"Libya" is a British construct, like Kuwait and Iraq. It has little history and is far from being a source of identity for its nominal residents.

The good news is that it will partition nicely into eastern and western zones with no hand wringing about the destruction of "their" country.

Bogney · Senior Member

FFF: If a foreign leader is an idealist or an idiot, perhaps they might draw that distinction. If they are pragmatic, they would see after Iraq that we feel free to attack except where we can't. Certainly, if we were going for regime change in Iraq, the case was far stronger in North Korea, except N. Korea had nukes. Foreign leaders contemplating developing nuclear power were just going to trust us after Iraq and Afghanistan? - please. Libya came around because they did not have nukes yet and figured they would be invaded just like Iraq if they did not abandon their plans. The stick was was the motivator after we showed that level of miltary aggression. Anyone who might have believed that by giving up nukes, they could do anything they wanted without consequences from the U.S. military would have been a fool.

It is disingenuous to suggest that some principled distinction has been given up by attacking Libya. Part of the justification for Iraq was what Saddam did to his own people and the Kurds. Since we did not find wmds, that is the primary justification using hindsight - he was an sob who deserved it. Sadam's brutal dictatorship and abuse of his own people were not the primary reasons for an invasion, but they were part of the rationale. Those principles seem to be the primary rationale for a lesser assault on Libya in support of rebels. Bush made preemptive strikes an explicit part of our foreign policy making any non-nuclear nation potentially vulnerable if we viewed them as a threat to us or simply as very bad actors.

The lesson from Iraq is that if you pursue WMDs, the U.S. will go after you. If you have them we won't. All Libya adds is that if you don't have nukes, try to slaughter your people, and our military is neaby, we might bomb you. North Korea will certainly use Libya to their advantage with political rhetoric, but do you seriously think they were contemplating giving up their nuclear arsenal before the Libya bombardment? Darn, but for Obama we almost had North Korea disarmed.

Something extraordinary was happening in Libya when we attacked. Nothing out of the ordinary was happening in Iraq when we launched a full scale invasion. The justification for the Libya operation is closer in nature to the first gulf war except that we reacted to Libya's attack on its own people, not a neighboring country.

There are many reasons to be concerned about the attack on Libya, but warping foreign policy is not one of them - it was already excessively militaristic and preemptive.

BigG · Guru

Ah but when that happened Gaddafi was still our valuable resource in the War on Terror.

It is just recently that he morphed into an evil dictator/oppressor of his own people.

Actually "his own people" are the Gaddafi and allied tribes.

Frightening little article if you read "between the lines":

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=24257

With our emphasis on "nation states" and "countries", do we really understand Africa and the Middle East?

soccerguy315 · Guru

speaking of integrating into the world community, information is coming out now about all the money we apparently gave Libyan banks during the bailouts...

FFF · Veteran Member

Bogney wrote:
You mean that lesson had not already been taught by Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe not to slow learners. The "Bush doctrine" of preemptive strikes in our national interest put any fledgling nuclear power on notice that we might go in and take them out. Obama may have reinforced the lesson, but he follows in the footsteps of Bush in this regard.
Maybe Iraq scared Libya straight because it was in their backyard, but the lesson of Iraq and Iran for small nations was clear. If you do not have nukes, you could be invaded by the U.S. at any time. If you have them, the U.S. will not bomb or invade.

These are totally different situations. There was a clear carrot and stick approach employed by Bush: If you don't abandon your nuclear program you are subject to invasion. If you do, we will reintroduce you to the world community. Obama negated the carrot by showing that if you do abandon your program you are a total sap and we will invade you anyway. Good job, O.

BigG · Guru

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/north/Battles-Rage-as-Libya-Rejects-a-Rebel-Cease-fire-Offer-119101924.html

Interesting title. "Libya" rejects.

Without close air support, the "rebels" are toast.

Look for the spinmeisters to be humming like dynamos!

Bogney · Senior Member

You mean that lesson had not already been taught by Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe not to slow learners. The "Bush doctrine" of preemptive strikes in our national interest put any fledgling nuclear power on notice that we might go in and take them out. Obama may have reinforced the lesson, but he follows in the footsteps of Bush in this regard.

Maybe Iraq scared Libya straight because it was in their backyard, but the lesson of Iraq and Iran for small nations was clear. If you do not have nukes, you could be invaded by the U.S. at any time. If you have them, the U.S. will not bomb or invade.

FFF · Veteran Member

This is what makes me mad about this whole Libya thing. One good outcome of the Iraq war was that is scared Ghadaffi straight and caused him to give up his nuclear program and abandon terrorism. For this he was being slowly reintegrated into the world community. Now, Obama, with nthe stroke of a pen has turned this whole thing 180 degrees and has taught the despots of the world a lesson - never give up your nuclear program because, if you do, you will be a sitting duck for the US to attack. He has also re-created an enemy that will use terrorism in the future to extract his revenge on the U.S. Good job, O.

BigG · Guru

Yep. The loud and clear message we have sent to the world: If you value your soverignty, GET THE BOMB.

Otherwise whenever an American President gets his a$$ in a crack politically, he may decide to whack you.

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

Truth be told, I think North Korea has it right here:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110325_7871.php

Sorry for double-posting on your link, poetgrl.

soccerguy315 · Guru

just remember the previous Obama, before he turned into Bush III: “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history,” said Sen. Obama.

Fast forward to 2011, and we have SECDEF Gates openly saying that the US has no national interests in Libya, and Obama justifying un-clarified military intervention with no boundaries, no exit plan, and no goals.

funny how that works.

BigG · Guru

And, he said, the opposition was open to foreign troops training rebel fighters

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.war/?hpt=T2

Wow. This has the potential to blow right past President W.'s two wars and become a full fledged Vietnam.

Draft?

soccerguy315 · Guru

from BigG's link: "It is difficult in international law to argue for a pre-emptive use of force to protect civilians from a possible threat that might arise in the future. We don't know if there is evidence to show that a failure to attack Ghadaffi's forces would lead to a regrouping that would lead in turn to attacks on civilians. Pre-emption is a major problem because it is seen as a slippery slope, and rightly so."
-------

this is the BS that lawyers worry about, going to great lengths to care about which way the barrel of the tank is facing when deciding whether or not it is a fair target, refusing to acknowledge that the tank is obviously only used to kill other people. It is not a slippery slope. Tanks are there to kill people. They are not there for any other reason.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 28th of March 2011 08:33:27 PM

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

If this is true, I really don't know what to say. We can not be this foolish, can we?

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

BigG · Guru

Coalition exceeding its mandate?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/libya-bombing-un-resolution-law

DUH!!!

Ya think?

Not that it matters.

As always "might makes right" or at least writes the history books, except for a few purile revisionists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us_deploys_low_flying_attack_planes_in_libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 28th of March 2011 12:34:28 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 28th of March 2011 03:55:52 PM