Does it bother anybody else that the only channel that has as much coverage as the situation deserves is al Jazeera?
The whole running drama, from Tunisia through till this craziness in Libya, has forced me on to Twitter, which seems to have a lot of good up to the minute updates -- even if half of it is rumor.
Reuters, Telegraph, and Fox (online and network) covered it non-stop yesterday.
The entire region is collapsing. Al Jazeera is carrying broadcasts of Muslem Clerics calling for uprising in several countries. Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa calling for the execution of Kadhafi.
All US citizens have been recalled, however all flights have been canceled by the primary carrier (Emirates Airlines).
The president is apparently still angry at the state department for sending conflicting messages on Egypt, so it seems that they are being more cautious in making statements. Unfortunately this is being viewed as a vacuum in foreign policy. The president's saving grace is that our main stream media is very accommodating. That is why this is second page news domestically.
None of the left-wing networks reported on the almost 10% increase in oil prices (Lybia is the 18th largest oil producer) yesterday as a result. CNN is covering the earthquake in New Zealand as their primary story.
I think it's sad when liberals have to turn to Al Jazeera and Twitter to get their news.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
I think it's sad when liberals have to turn to Al Jazeera and Twitter to get their news.
That's what you get out of this?
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2011, 08:03:00 AM
That's what you get out of this?
It is a strong secondary concern!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
Reuters, Telegraph, and Fox (online and network) covered it non-stop yesterday.
The entire region is collapsing. Al Jazeera is carrying broadcasts of Muslem Clerics calling for uprising in several countries. Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa calling for the execution of Kadhafi.
All US citizens have been recalled, however all flights have been canceled by the primary carrier (Emirates Airlines).
The president is apparently still angry at the state department for sending conflicting messages on Egypt, so it seems that they are being more cautious in making statements. Unfortunately this is being viewed as a vacuum in foreign policy. The president's saving grace is that our main stream media is very accommodating. That is why this is second page news domestically.
None of the left-wing networks reported on the almost 10% increase in oil prices (Lybia is the 18th largest oil producer) yesterday as a result. CNN is covering the earthquake in New Zealand as their primary story.
I think it's sad when liberals have to turn to Al Jazeera and Twitter to get their news.
Hmm..last time I checked, 4 dollars was about 5 percent of 86 dollars...I guess to the 'right wing news network(s), 5 percent = 10 percent. That's some elliptical math right there.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 08:07:16 AM
It is a strong secondary concern!
Where are these left wing networks and how do I tune in to them?
Quote from: we vs us on February 22, 2011, 08:51:11 AM
Where are these left wing networks and how do I tune in to them?
You need a special metalic hat. ;D
Quote from: we vs us on February 22, 2011, 08:51:11 AM
Where are these left wing networks and how do I tune in to them?
There aren't many due to lack of far left crazies to support them. Just watch Fox kook shows and think "opposite day".
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
Reuters, Telegraph, and Fox (online and network) covered it non-stop yesterday.
Not television, not television, and no, I actually tried Fox. Perish the thought. They were peddling their anti-union bias about the Wisconsin situation at that time, but that was before the NZ earthquake. Nor were they covering it when I went to the bank. (yes, my bank plays Fox News) al Jazeera English was actually covering the situation as it deserved, with occasional mention of other issues. (as did BBC News in its timeslot on BBC America, but since we don't get a 24/7 BBC News TV station here it wasn't as much good)
Dunno what al Arabiya (the US supported one) was doing, since I couldn't find a live stream of it.
And personally, I'm a little more concerned with the massacres than the price of oil, thanks.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 09:17:17 PM
Does it bother anybody else that the only channel that has as much coverage as the situation deserves is al Jazeera?
That's why I watch BBC America News for this. They actually have people that report on the situation and try not to editorialize, put in some form of agenda on the story.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh103hxRDQ1qdkv8qo1_500.jpg)
"Twitter is mightier than the sword." Photo by @heysarafusco.
Libya?
Is that the Democrat version of Dubya?
Anyone see Qaddafi doing his Mary Poppins impersonation..... ???
Better than his batshitinsane impression he's doing as we speak. Bastard just won't give up.
Got em all stirred up. Used the "FOX" word.
(http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Moonbats.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 10:38:18 AM
Got em all stirred up. Used the "FOX" word.
(http://files.sharenator.com/181148_triple_facepalm_super_RE_The_most_awesome_thing_u_will_ever_see-s600x480-89034.jpg)
Wow, he's now comparing using the military on his own people to Waco. Is there a quadruple facepalm?
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4628/epicfacepalmbyrjth.jpg)
I wonder if the freed Pan Am 103 bomber is squirming a bit now, as well.
No, Scotland does NOT get him back...
QuoteCastro: unrest in Libya pretext for NATO invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/22/501364/main20034949.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/22/501364/main20034949.shtml)
So there's that.
"However the he!l you spell his name" going the scorched earth route?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2052961,00.html
His interior minister who resigned is telling CNN that he may commit suicide. Nothing more dangerous than a madman with weapons stockpiles willing to go down in a blaze of glory.
QuoteHe called Gadhafi "a stubborn man" who will not give up. "He will either commit suicide or he will get killed," said Abidi, who said he has known him since 1964.
I'm less surprised that Ghaddafi is going all-in and more surprised that any of the dictators in the countries that've revolted before Libya haven't. IMO this kind of response was inevitable, if not from Ghaddafi then from someone else in the Middle East.
Quote from: nathanm on February 22, 2011, 10:42:04 AM
Wow, he's now comparing using the military on his own people to Waco. Is there a quadruple facepalm?
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4628/epicfacepalmbyrjth.jpg)
I love that scene! It kills me every time.
Hey! You call this slop? Real slop has got chunks in it! This is more like gruel! And this Château le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are, animals?
Bwahahaha
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ucO-lpjlUTg/TWWXgisADtI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/hS5OmGIP0pw/s1600/Misspelled+Libya.png)
Quote from: guido911 on February 23, 2011, 09:12:09 PM
Bwahahaha
You should see the awful misuse of grammar I saw on a Centurylink billboard in Arkansas earlier today. It made me cringe.
Quote from: guido911 on February 23, 2011, 09:12:09 PM
Bwahahaha
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ucO-lpjlUTg/TWWXgisADtI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/hS5OmGIP0pw/s1600/Misspelled+Libya.png)
At least it didn't say "Labia"
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 09:59:32 PM
At least it didn't say "Labia"
Get out of my brain cell...
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2011, 10:24:53 AM
Libya?
Is that the Democrat version of Dubya?
Not quite.....but almost! Bush bombed Iraq 19 March 2003, Obama bombed Libya 19 March 2011: Change we can believe in.
http://www.legitgov.org/Pentagon-112-cruise-missiles-launched-US-and-UK-ships-and-subs-hitting-20-sites
I'm glad Obama reduced the number of foreign conflicts we're involved in like he promised.
No, wait..
For 24-7 coverage, the best I have seen is CNN International. On my boat there were at three versions of this network with wall to wall coverage.
Sgrizz. Can we call Obama a "neocon" now?
I'm a little bugged that Castro called it.
Quote from: guido911 on March 20, 2011, 02:37:08 PM
Sgrizz. Can we call Obama a "neocon" now?
Assuming you were actually disgusted with the Bush admin's initiation of war 8 years back it would be cool to say the same about Obama. Both candidates ran an anti-war campaign.
If you agree with one party's foreigner killing policy, it would pretty much make sense to agree with the other party's foreigner killing policy unless you choose to look like a hypocrite.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on March 21, 2011, 02:17:04 AM
If you agree with one party's foreigner killing policy, it would pretty much make sense to agree with the other party's foreigner killing policy unless you choose to look like a hypocrite.
Economic and social policies between the parties are different. Why can't the foreigner killing policies be different too? :D
"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Blasts Obama For Calling For Qaddafi to Step Down.
Michael Moore asks that he return his Nobel Prize.
More than 100 anti-war protesters were arrested outside the White House.
I think the liberals are being very consistent.
Even Gaddafi still praises him on the eve of 100 cruise missiles and B2 Bomber runs.
"To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."
What a president! He can go to war from the beach in Rio, set a country aflame and still be praised by the enemy.
More good news is that there is still room in GITMO for Gaddafi! ;)
Also. . .
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions.
"They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress," one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. "They're creating wreckage, and they can't obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. ... There aren't boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1HExrAYZH
I see great consistency in the actions of liberals.
I am glad you think all liberals are exactly alike. No one cares.
Not alike. . . Consistent.
It must have been very painful for the President to phone in a decision on Libya, knowing full well that it would have a devastating effect on his popularity within liberal circles.
I commend him on finally taking action. I also commend him in making the right decision. Other presidents have had to make this same kind of decision and face the noise. Personally, I didn't think he had it in him.
I am upset that when on the brink of another war, he couldn't cancel his vacation to at least be seen as a commander, but it is certainly better than nothing, and obviously the best he can muster.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 08:40:07 AM
Not alike. . . Consistent.
It must have been very painful for the President to phone in a decision on Libya, knowing full well that it would have a devastating effect on his popularity within liberal circles.
I commend him on finally taking action. I also commend him in making the right decision. Other presidents have had to make this same kind of decision and face the noise. Personally, I didn't think he had it in him.
I am upset that when on the brink of another war, he couldn't cancel his vacation to at least be seen as a commander, but it is certainly better than nothing, and obviously the best he can muster.
Jamie Dupree was saying this morning it's rumored that Dennis Kucinich was calling for President Obama's impeachment on a conference call this weekend. The troops are running amok it would seem.
I'm trying to figure out why it's important to the Obama administration to back a regime change in Libya.
Quadaffi Qadaffi Khadhaffi crazy, poorly dressed dictator doesn't seem to have committed any more human atrocities as Saddam Hussein had and Libya doesn't seem to raise near the threat to U.S. interests as Iraq or Iran does.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 08:40:07 AM
It must have been very painful for the President to phone in a decision on Libya, knowing full well that it would have a devastating effect on his popularity within liberal circles.
If you think the President considered his popularity with the Libyan people before deciding on whether to start military action, you are just plain stupid.
Personally, I didn't think you had such idiocy in you.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2011, 08:58:44 AM
If you think the President considered his popularity with the Libyan people before deciding on whether to start military action, you are just plain stupid.
Personally, I didn't think you had such idiocy in you.
LOL! Not his popularity with the Libyan people, his popularity with the Liberal people. :D
. . .and never underestimate my idiocy! ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
LOL! Not his popularity with the Libyan people, his popularity with the Liberal people. :D
. . .and never underestimate my idiocy! ;)
Why are the Librarians unhappy with him? ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2011, 09:04:49 AM
Why are the Librarians unhappy with him? ;D
Dennis Kucinich is calling his actions "Impeachable."
I would think that the liberal individuals on this forum would be happy that their ideological leadership is so consistent. It shows that they have principals. ???
I would think you would praise the President for starting a war that you clearly want.
No. You will attack President Obama no matter what he does.
If he doesn't start a war, you will complain. If he does start a war, he will say he doesn't do it fast enough.
You really need to get some perspective.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 09:08:16 AM
Dennis Kucinich is calling his actions "Impeachable."
Are you getting your information from another right wing blogger?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2011, 09:14:53 AM
I would think you would praise the President for starting a war that you clearly want.
No. You will attack President Obama no matter what he does.
If he doesn't start a war, you will complain. If he does start a war, he will say he doesn't do it fast enough.
You really need to get some perspective.
I did praise him. Thousands of Libyan citizens were being murdered every day. Deaths we could prevent.
Yes, we could have prevented the deaths that that occurred during the time that the UN and others were asking that we intervene.
I appreciate his thoughtfulness, but when lives are at stake, being Hamlet is of little value.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 08:40:07 AM
Not alike. . . Consistent.
It must have been very painful for the President to phone in a decision on Libya, knowing full well that it would have a devastating effect on his popularity within liberal circles.
"Liberal circles?" If Farrakhan, Michael Moore, and a 100 or so anti-Iraq War demonstrators count in your head as the totality of the "liberal" base, it's no wonder your posts are so wonky. Obama might be beholden to a lot of different liberal power centers, but those guys
really aren't them.
Rumors of Kucinich getting all fiery on a conference call are about the flimsiest sort of innuendo-reporting there is. Do Congressfolk have concerns about his constitutional ability to use force? Sure. But they ALWAYS have concerns, and have had concerns since the Gulf of Tonkin. Or even since the sinking of the Maine. In 1898. It's one of those permanent, unresolved tensions between the legislative and the executive.
Does this mean the liberal base is rebelling? Um, no.
Again, Gassy, thanks for trying to find the weaknesses in the progressive coalition. I appreciate your concern that we don't have enough primary choices in 2012, but you're making mountains out of molehills.
Quote from: we vs us on March 21, 2011, 09:25:53 AM
"Liberal circles?" If Farrakhan, Michael Moore, and a 100 or so anti-Iraq War demonstrators count in your head as the totality of the "liberal" base, it's no wonder your posts are so wonky. Obama might be beholden to a lot of different liberal power centers, but those guys really aren't them.
Rumors of Kucinich getting all fiery on a conference call are about the flimsiest sort of innuendo-reporting there is. Do Congressfolk have concerns about his constitutional ability to use force? Sure. But they ALWAYS have concerns, and have had concerns since the Gulf of Tonkin. Or even since the sinking of the Maine. In 1898. It's one of those permanent, unresolved tensions between the legislative and the executive.
Does this mean the liberal base is rebelling? Um, no.
Again, Gassy, thanks for trying to find the weaknesses in the progressive coalition. I appreciate your concern that we don't have enough primary choices in 2012, but you're making mountains out of molehills.
Cool! I am happy to finally see some fracture between the moonbats and the mainstream. Without these folks to be your flag-barers, progressives/liberals will benefit and add more diversity to the political discussion without so much crazy.
So, lets all happily support the actions of our president, and rally behind the Libyan people as they watch the fall of their dictator and embrace Democracy.
I think someone's Sheening this morning.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2011, 09:38:26 AM
I think someone's Sheening this morning.
Starbucks and Tigerblood!
It really is odd that you write with such glee about President Obama and try to attack all liberals. You must post at least a dozen comments a week railing against democrats.
Gaspar, did you get made fun of by a democrat when you were a child?
Beck Upset Obama Didn't Act On Libya -- Then, 20 Seconds Later, Upset That He Did
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103180044?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d868cbff6927910%2C1
"No matter what President Obama does regarding Libya, it seems, ___________ is determined to bash him for it." Insert any number of names, from Beck to Nadir, TeaBaggers to LaRouchies. Doesn't matter what he does, he'll get bashed for it. And if he took a different course, those same people would bash him for that too.
We saw that this week with the Nation scoring Obama for inaction in the beginning of the week, now bashing him for getting US into ANOTHER WAR. The very action that they were howling that he hadn't done.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 09:36:43 AM
Cool! I am happy to finally see some fracture between the moonbats and the mainstream. Without these folks to be your flag-barers, progressives/liberals will benefit and add more diversity to the political discussion without so much crazy.
It's not just those folks I am smiling at. It's also the lefties in this forum that are scrambling to distance themselves from the "moonbats" gassy. I will have to look back and see this distancing by our forum lefties (in particular wevsus & RM) from Michael Moore when he was out there spewing his moonbattery during the Wisconsin union temper tantrum.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2011, 10:18:14 AM
It really is odd that you write with such glee about President Obama and try to attack all liberals. You must post at least a dozen comments a week railing against democrats.
Gaspar, did you get made fun of by a democrat when you were a child?
I don't like the politics of either party.
. . .and yes, both spend their days ridiculing the American People by relying on the stupid, the uninformed and the uninterested to get them in and keep them in power.
Quote from: guido911 on March 21, 2011, 12:36:54 PM
It's not just those folks I am smiling at. It's also the lefties in this forum that are scrambling to distance themselves from the "moonbats" gassy. I will have to look back and see this distancing by our forum lefties (in particular wevsus & RM) from Michael Moore when he was out there spewing his moonbattery during the Wisconsin union temper tantrum.
Not much different than our resident Hannity and Beck (that would be Gweed and Gas) who can find NOTHING that Obama does right. Well, nearly nothing.
Looks like the TNF is 'fair and balanced' in that respect.
:o
Quote from: Hoss on March 21, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
Not much different than our resident Hannity and Beck (that would be Gweed and Gas) who can find NOTHING that Obama does right. Well, nearly nothing.
Looks like the TNF is 'fair and balanced' in that respect.
:o
That's not true, I've complemented the president on several occasions, it's just that most of his policy is awful.
I don't know if the intent is to keep us in a recessive economic state or if this is still part of some awkwardly executed Cloward-Piven strategy.
Either way, he does not support policies that promote economic liberty. As long as that is the case, I will find more fault than respect.
I stand corrected on the whole Kucinich thing. Looks like he did in fact say Obama's actions were an impeachable offense. FWIW, I think he's being a moron. Presidents have had that latitude for generations now. I'm disappointed that Kucinich is the guy to kick off the patented Democratic Circular Firing Squad (tm). He's a principled loudmouth but normally pretty savvy about party politics.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
And PS Guid, I'm not distancing myself from anyone (Moore included). He's just not the powerbroker you and Gassy give him credit for being.
Quote from: we vs us on March 21, 2011, 01:35:43 PM
I stand corrected on the whole Kucinich thing. Looks like he did in fact say Obama's actions were an impeachable offense. FWIW, I think he's being a moron.
And PS Guid, I'm not distancing myself from anyone (Moore included). He's just not the powerbroker you and Gassy give him credit for being.
You're just now catching the idea Kucinich is a moron? He's such a moron, he'd make great Vice President material (rim shot).
And someone needs to tell Michael Moron he's not a standard-bearer or power-broker for the left. He's not figured that out yet.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 01:09:03 PM
That's not true, I've complemented the president on several occasions, it's just that most of his policy is awful.
It's always like that. Back handed and insincere.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2011, 02:11:03 PM
It's always like that. Back handed and insincere.
meh
Apparently Kucinich is not the only one. . .
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) just made the comment on MSNBC:
"We're in Libya because of oil."
Let the pre-election liberal pandering begin.
LOL! Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich may actually be THE power brokers.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 02:21:38 PM
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) just made the comment on MSNBC:
"We're in Libya because of oil."
Link?
There's a whole bunch of em. Just Google:
We're in Libya Because of Oil!
. . .but here's one if Huffington hasn't reported it yet.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/151045-key-dem-attacks-on-libya-are-because-of-oil
Here's the MSNBC Video:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/21/dem_congressman_were_in_libya_because_of_oil.html
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
There's a whole bunch of em. Just Google:
We're in Libya Because of Oil!
. . .but here's one if Huffington hasn't reported it yet.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/151045-key-dem-attacks-on-libya-are-because-of-oil
There you go. See? if you provide a link then we can see the entire story and show that you use small bits of stories to attack anything you can on this administration.
Ed Markey is part of the House Natural Resources Committee which considers legislation on American energy production, mining, parks, public lands , fisheries & wildlife, Native Americans, hydropower and reclamation.
He no likey international oil. He should BLAME CANADA before he goes after our oil needs in Lybia. Do you know the % of oil the USA gets from Lybia?
So you think we're attacking Lybia for their oil. It can't be because MQ said "no mercy" and he was killing his own people? What's up? After Bush you can't believe anymore?
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2011, 02:54:14 PM
There you go. See? if you provide a link then we can see the entire story and show that you use small bits of stories to attack anything you can on this administration.
Ed Markey is part of the House Natural Resources Committee which considers legislation on American energy production, mining, parks, public lands , fisheries & wildlife, Native Americans, hydropower and reclamation.
He no likey international oil. He should BLAME CANADA before he goes after our oil needs in Lybia. Do you know the % of oil the USA gets from Lybia?
So you think we're attacking Lybia for their oil. It can't be because MQ said "no mercy" and he was killing his own people? What's up? After Bush you can't believe anymore?
Didn't follow that. You went a bit off the reservation.
No, we are most certainly not in Libya for their oil. It is dangerous and damaging for Mr. Markey to make such a comment moments before President Obama addresses the world from Chili on the impetus for the military action.
Markey effectively stepped in front of President's Obama's message and gained world wide press before the president of our country got his message out.
Brilliantly stupid!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2011, 03:00:11 PM
Didn't follow that. You went a bit off the reservation.
No, we are most certainly not in Libya for their oil. It is dangerous and damaging for Mr. Markey to make such a comment moments before President Obama addresses the world from Chili on the impetus for the military action.
Markey effectively stepped in front of President's Obama's message and gained world wide press before the president of our country got his message out.
Brilliantly stupid!
Provide links and your posts will at least appear valid.
World wide on what? The conservative blogs? You think any respected news agency would say "well the president said this but he was blown away by Ed Markey."
From CNBC:
QuoteLibya — with disruption to its 2 percent of world oil output already priced in — does not matter from that perspective as things stand.
"The events in Libya ... do not jeopardize the global economic outlook," Berenberg private bank told its clients.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42196121 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42196121)
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2011, 02:54:14 PM
There you go. See? if you provide a link then we can see the entire story and show that you use small bits of stories to attack anything you can on this administration.
Ed Markey is part of the House Natural Resources Committee which considers legislation on American energy production, mining, parks, public lands , fisheries & wildlife, Native Americans, hydropower and reclamation.
He no likey international oil. He should BLAME CANADA before he goes after our oil needs in Lybia. Do you know the % of oil the USA gets from Lybia?
So you think we're attacking Lybia for their oil. It can't be because MQ said "no mercy" and he was killing his own people? What's up? After Bush you can't believe anymore?
So the humanitarian effort in Iraq was a subterfuge for a war on oil, but now a war on oil is a subterfuge for a humanitarian effort?
I'm so confused....
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u3Auqjlx_e8/SBothy_zm0I/AAAAAAAABV0/EoE33CZsoAc/s320/VinnieBarbarino-2006_03_14-22_59_34.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2011, 03:05:07 PM
So the humanitarian effort in Iraq was a subterfuge for a war on oil, but now a war on oil is a subterfuge for a humanitarian effort?
This is a war on oil?
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
This is a war on oil?
Absolutely, oil is the bad guy ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2011, 03:11:58 PM
Absolutely, oil is the bad guy ;)
It does seem to create negativity.
I am saddened that we have attacked Libya. I think it should be imperative that all Americans look very closely any time we bomb any country.
What event made the American military feel that it has to police the world?
Why do we go after bad guys in OPEC countries because of atrocities to the own people and completely ignore other dictators who do the same things (North Korea)? Is the reason oil?
I read that the first day of bombing cost us $160 million. The war in Iraq has been estimated to has cost $780 billion so far. How can we afford to be in a war in other countries?
I have seen little justification on this war. I have seen plenty of criticism of Obama for not starting fast enough to doing anything. Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2011, 03:24:02 PM
I am saddened that we have attacked Libya. I think it should be imperative that all Americans look very closely any time we bomb any country.
What event made the American military feel that it has to police the world?
Why do we go after bad guys in OPEC countries because of atrocities to the own people and completely ignore other dictators who do the same things (North Korea)? Is the reason oil?
I read that the first day of bombing cost us $160 million. The war in Iraq has been estimated to has cost $780 billion so far. How can we afford to be in a war in other countries?
I have seen little justification on this war. I have seen plenty of criticism of Obama for not starting fast enough to doing anything. Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?
I agree with you and I would have disagreed with this action every bit as strongly if it were McCain in charge. I think we need to quit trying to pick the winners and losers in foreign countries and let them exercise their own sovereignty so long as it's not threatening other's sovereignty. To my knowledge, Libya was not becoming a threat to their neighbors, it's a matter of civil unrest they should be able to settle on their own. Would we want foreign nations coming in and deciding our civil issues?
We hit Libya in the mid '80's because ostensibly they were harboring terrorists and were the main source of terrorism at the time. We've kept Qadaffi on a short leash ever since and he's been relatively quiet. Why the sudden need to oust his regime?
I simply don't see the need for us to be the world's top cop.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2011, 03:24:02 PM
I am saddened that we have attacked Libya. I think it should be imperative that all Americans look very closely any time we bomb any country.
What event made the American military feel that it has to police the world?
Why do we go after bad guys in OPEC countries because of atrocities to the own people and completely ignore other dictators who do the same things (North Korea)? Is the reason oil?
I read that the first day of bombing cost us $160 million. The war in Iraq has been estimated to has cost $780 billion so far. How can we afford to be in a war in other countries?
I have seen little justification on this war. I have seen plenty of criticism of Obama for not starting fast enough to doing anything. Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?
I'm with you. I always think of the warning, "Eisenhower military industrial complex" and what I thought it represented.
RM: "Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?"
Under hypnosis, anything may be possible. This is not the same man the country elected....
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 21, 2011, 04:01:10 PM
RM: "Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?"
Under hypnosis, anything may be possible. This is not the same man the country elected....
It's most definitely the man the country elected. This is what happens when you elect a man with zero prior leadership experience, a lack of core principles, and/or the spine to stand on his core principles.
What did we really know about this relative political newcomer and how much did his handlers allow us to learn about him? Not much, it was all about the image and lofty promises, not the resume. I'm not disappointed because this is about what I'd expected. The only real surprise for me was how he apparently got corrupted by the MIC.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2011, 05:11:08 PM
It's most definitely the man the country elected. This is what happens when you elect a man with zero prior leadership experience, a lack of core principles, and/or the spine to stand on his core principles.
What did we really know about this relative political newcomer and how much did his handlers allow us to learn about him? Not much, it was all about the image and lofty promises, not the resume. I'm not disappointed because this is about what I'd expected. The only real surprise for me was how he apparently got corrupted by the MIC.
You're wrong. He has core principles. Core POLITICAL principles. Corrupted and hypnotized seem interchangeable in this conversion.
Besides you're missing McCain/Palin, don't you believe all this will be good for the economies? Revive them the way WWII did for the 1930s? If anyone wants to draw cynical conclusions from that, then OK.
"No boots on the ground".....It's the latest catch phrase! And it's now "policy" or in other words, case precedent: Ronald Reagan
I think Obama will serve as default for all other choices in 12. He warned us that change was coming. He just did not tell us it was his change.
Oh Lord! I'm glad he's back. ;D
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 21, 2011, 05:29:54 PM
You're wrong. He has core principles. Core POLITICAL principles. Corrupted and hypnotized seem interchangeable in this conversion.
Besides you're missing McCain/Palin, don't you believe all this will be good for the economies? Revive them the way WWII did for the 1930s? If anyone wants to draw cynical conclusions from that, then OK.
"No boots on the ground".....It's the latest catch phrase! And it's now "policy" or in other words, case precedent: Ronald Reagan
I think Obama will serve as default for all other choices in 12. He warned us that change was coming. He just did not tell us it was his change.
I kept telling you Obama supporters you were going to get chump changed.
Unrest in the Middle East will not revive the economy. Higher fuel and raw material prices will wreck it. There's also not significant new jobs to be created within the MIC by adding one or two third world countries to our list of active conflicts.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 21, 2011, 07:13:06 PM
I kept telling you Obama supporters you were going to get chump changed.
Unrest in the Middle East will not revive the economy. Higher fuel and raw material prices will wreck it. There's also not significant new jobs to be created within the MIC by adding one or two third world countries to our list of active conflicts.
Problem was, the other team didn't have a viable candidate. I mean, McCain was, until he let his handlers dictate who his running mate should be, instead of who he wanted it to be. Can you imagine Palin one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Makes me shudder....
Oops, dropped one:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01854/plane01_1854046b.jpg)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397587/Libya-US-fighter-jet-crash-lands-in-field-near-Benghazi.html
Quote from: Hoss on March 22, 2011, 06:49:50 AM
Problem was, the other team didn't have a viable candidate. I mean, McCain was, until he let his handlers dictate who his running mate should be, instead of who he wanted it to be. Can you imagine Palin one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Makes me shudder....
I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win. The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2011, 09:16:52 AM
I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win. The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.
Good point, but Pawlenty or even Liebermann would have been a damn sight better than Mama Grizzlie. Especially after that disastrous media presence.
Quote from: Hoss on March 22, 2011, 09:58:28 AM
Good point, but Pawlenty or even Liebermann would have been a damn sight better than Mama Grizzlie. Especially after that disastrous media presence.
The whole strategy was stupid. Why was the running mate being put up against Obama in the first place? That's almost like saying it's a guarantee McCain wouldn't finish his term. The other part was her trying to make it sound like a 1/2 term governor with a muddled educational background was somehow any better equipped to run the country.
Lieberman would have been as bad a pick as it would have splintered off some factions in the party who would be pissed McCain didn't pick a Republican as a running mate. Those disaffected voters wouldn't have voted for Obama, they simply would have not voted.
Pure and simple: the GOP did NOT want the White House in '08. They knew the next two years were going to be Hell. Why take all the blame with an impatient America while you could sit back suffer through two years of reduced power, call everything President Obama and the Democrats were doing a failure and start a resurgence in '10 then take the WH back in 2012 for another eight years. If McCain had won, the GOP would have been slaughtered down to near nothing in the legislative branch in the 2010 election. It was a tactical move and McCain was a willing accomplice.
As it turned out, the GOP was able to point to the "failed policies" of the prior two years and we know the result. How would they have campaigned around that with McCain in the White House trying to bolster the numbers in Congress. Simply could not have happened in near as dramatic fashion.
That's my take anyhow. Take that with a grain of salt or a tinfoil hat, what ever you are comfortable with.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2011, 09:16:52 AM
I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win. The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.
So we get stuck with perhaps the least qualified, least experienced, and least leading president since I have been able to vote. Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.
We got a bumper sticker. . ."Anyone but Bush."
As my avatar implies, President Obama is Bush's fault!
Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today on the contrasts between Iraq and Libya.
As bombs started falling on Libya Saturday, blogger Glenn Reynolds noticed something striking: "Hey, it's exactly 8 years to the day since Bush started bombing Iraq!" Eight years--which is to say, Barack Obama ordered the bombing of an Arab dictatorship at precisely the same point in his presidency that George W. Bush did.
Of course, there were some differences. The Libya war is new; the Iraq one was an escalation of a conflict that had been under way for 12 years. The U.N. Security Council had authorized action in Libya for the first time two days earlier, vs. 17 times in Iraq.
Bush had persuaded a large majority of the public that escalating the war was a good idea; Obama had to act more quickly, without making a sustained case to either the public or Congress.
Also, Bush made his announcement from the Oval Office. His successor spoke at the White House on Friday, but by the time the bombs started falling, he was in--of all places--Brazil. . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214623509564818.html?KEYWORDS=james+taranto
Quote from: guido911 on March 22, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.
Sarah Palin just wishes she had the attention that Charlie Sheen is getting.
Quote from: guido911 on March 22, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
So we get stuck with perhaps the least qualified, least experienced, and least leading president since I have been able to vote. Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.
How better to create a great opportunity for even a mediocre GOP candidate in 2012. I realize not wanting to win the WH seems counter-intuitive, but President Obama is the perfect set-up for the next batch of GOP presidential wanna be's.
My issue with
Gov. Palin is this: Passionate spokesperson, folksy and seems approachable, but light on a real leadership resume. I'm every bit as capable of spewing the talking points as she is. Somehow people mistake her ability to do that with some sort of great politcal intellect. Given the large stage she's been given as well as six hours a day of Hannity, Limpbaugh, and Beck, I could look like a viable candidate in '12 as well. She will always take the partisan party line which might maker her a great legislator. A great leader has to be willing to compromise and I don't think she's got it in her.
I admire what she's risen to, don't get me wrong, but she's too much of a reality show candidate for me, Guido.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Sarah Palin just wishes she had the attention that Charlie Sheen is getting.
You should have heard Gary Busey on KRMG with Joe Kelley. He makes The Sheen sound perfectly sane.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Sarah Palin just wishes she had the attention that Charlie Sheen is getting.
Quantity maybe but that is probably all.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Sarah Palin just wishes she had the attention that Charlie Sheen is getting.
Seriously, what does that say about this country. Obama even takes a back seat to Sheen--I mean, after he sends our soldiers in harm's way then runs off to South America. Anyway, here is another story of lefty hero Moore, this time wanting Obama to return his peace prize. Is Moore replacing Sheehan or the revs as the biggest (pun intended) attention whore in this country?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/20/michael_moore_to_obama_return_your_nobel_peace_prize.html
Quote from: guido911 on March 22, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
So we get stuck with perhaps the least qualified, least experienced, and least leading president since I have been able to vote. Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.
Yup, figured that would bring you out.
Truth hurts.
Kucinich is introducing legislation to "Defund" the war on Libya.
He is also citing what both VP Biden (in 2003) and President Obama (on multiple occasions) have declared in previous speeches when they were attacking President Bush on Iraq, that under the constitution, "only congress has the authority to declare war."
Let's see if I can find it. . .Ahh, yes, here you go:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Senator Barack Obama, Boston Globe in 2007 :-X Doh!
Kucinich is planning on inserting his measure in the next supplemental spending bill.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
I admire what she's risen to, don't get me wrong, but she's too much of a reality show candidate for me, Guido.
I do not think she is electable (assuming she is running) given the savaging she took in 2008 and still gets today. I do think she would be acceptable in a leading role on energy policy, though. I like her because she makes the left and so many people in this forum collectively piss themselves whenever she speaks or posts something on freakin Facebook.
As an aside, is there any other non-office holding person (and grandmother) who can affect the electorate and policy more than Palin? Oprah? Limbaugh? Beck? Moochelle? Last week she had an audience with India's business and political leaders and with Netanyahu in Israel. Seems as if some people (okay millions) are interested in what she has to say.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
Kucinich is introducing legislation to "Defund" the war on Libya.
He is also citing what both VP Biden (in 2003) and President Obama (on multiple occasions) have declared in previous speeches when they were attacking President Bush on Iraq, that under the constitution, "only congress has the authority to declare war."
Let's see if I can find it. . .Ahh, yes, here you go:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Senator Barack Obama, Boston Globe in 2007 :-X Doh!
Kucinich is planning on inserting measure his head up his @ss again in the next supplemental spending bill.
Minor fix on Kucinich. Freakin fantastic point about this bozo's hypocrisy and down right political pandering. Does anyone here still believe anything this guy says?
Quote from: guido911 on March 22, 2011, 12:26:41 PM
Minor fix on Kucinich. Freakin fantastic point about this bozo's hypocrisy and down right political pandering. Does anyone here still believe anything this guy says?
Who cares, when his wife is sooo smokin'? Word is she's even got a pierced tongue. Kinky little bugger, he is.
(http://rightwingnews.com/graphics/hill1.jpg)
During his last speech I realized that his tung is pierced too.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2011, 01:05:26 PM
Who cares, when his wife is sooo smokin'? Word is she's even got a pierced tongue. Kinky little bugger, he is.
(http://rightwingnews.com/graphics/hill1.jpg)
Red on the noodle like a pecker on a poodle.....
They're all crawling out of the woodwork now.
Leftist hero Hugo Chavez comments today during "World Water Day"
"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water. He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about "water and oil reserves."
I guess we're just waiting on word from Sean Penn, Barb, and Alec Baldwin.
New Record
Not only has he racked up more debt than all other presidents combined. . . Now he is credited with firing more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Prize winners combined!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 06:45:50 AM
New Record
Not only has he racked up more debt than all other presidents combined. . . Now he is credited with firing more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Prize winners combined!
"It's all my fault. Who knew all that binge drinking in the White House would end up like this. Back to AA, sorry folks."
(http://images3.makefive.com/images/entertainment/celebrity/celebrities-you-would-most-like-to-punch-in-the-face/george-w-bush-7.jpg)
This thread has gone to plaid
Bhahaahahhahahhhaahahahahahhaahahahahah!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 10:29:03 AM
Bhahaahahhahahhhaahahahahahhaahahahahah!
Saw this on Drudge:
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 10:29:03 AM
Bhahaahahhahahhhaahahahahahhaahahahahah!
Sure looks different when you are the one with the red phone in your bedroom, doesn't it?
Yes. Any president could be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives.
The procedure is simple. The house judiciary committee holds a meeting. They vote that there is some evidence of wrongdoing. They hold formal meetings to investigate any evidence. They draw up articles of impeachment and decide if the president is guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors". They take a majority vote. He is impeached.
The judiciary committee and the House or both controlled by the opposing party.
All it takes to impeach is to piss off the opposing party when thy control the house. That ain't hard. Now to remove from office, all that has to happen then the senate holds a meeting. If they get two-thirds of senators to agree, the President is removed from office.
The senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 11:26:08 AM
Yes. Any President could be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives.
The procedure is simple. The house judiciary committee holds a meeting. They vote that there is some evidence of wrongdoing. They hold formal meetings to investigate any evidence. They draw up articles of impeachment and decide if the president is guilty of "high crimes or misdemeamors". They take a majority vote. He is impeached.
The judiciary committee and the House or both controlled by the opposing party.
All it takes is impeach is to piss off the opposing party when thy control the house. That ain't hard. Now to remove from office, all that has to happen the the senate holds a meeting. If they get two-thirds of senators to agree, the President is removed from office.
The senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
That's not the point. The point is the incredible level of hypocrisy here from the two who now head the Executive Branch.
How is this any different than when they were calling to impeach President Bush for the exact same thing?
It is not any different. What is your point?
Most politicians are hypocrites? Yeah, I already knew that.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 11:29:17 AM
It is not any different. What is your point?
Does it bother you that this is what "change" looks like?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 11:26:08 AM
Yes. Any president could be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives.
The procedure is simple. The house judiciary committee holds a meeting. They vote that there is some evidence of wrongdoing. They hold formal meetings to investigate any evidence. They draw up articles of impeachment and decide if the president is guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors". They take a majority vote. He is impeached.
The judiciary committee and the House or both controlled by the opposing party.
All it takes to impeach is to piss off the opposing party when thy control the house. That ain't hard. Now to remove from office, all that has to happen then the senate holds a meeting. If they get two-thirds of senators to agree, the President is removed from office.
The senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
The foregoing brought to you by:
(http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/files/original/captain.obvious.jpg)
in other news:
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff20/lwright75/CAPTAINOBVIOUS.png)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2011, 11:30:57 AM
Does it bother you that this is what "change" looks like?
Seriously Conan? Have you forgotten who you are addressing?
If you recall, I wasn't really enthusiastic about Obama the candidate.
I am pissed at him for bombing Libya. I am upset with him for not getting our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan. I lost it when he caved into republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. I don't think he has been an effective negotiator. I don't think he has been able to change Washington.
I am still glad he is the president. I thought he was the better choice 17 months ago and I just have to be patient that he will get better results soon.
I am not an idealogue like many on this forum. I want change from my government and I believe it is possible.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 11:39:18 AM
I am not an idealogue like many on this forum. I want change from my government and I believe it is possible.
I'd say that's pretty idealistic ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 11:39:18 AM
If you recall, I wasn't really enthusiastic about Obama the candidate.
I am pissed at him for bombing Libya. I am upset with him for not getting our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan. I lost it when he caved into republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. I don't think he has been an effective negotiator. I don't think he has been able to change Washington.
I am still glad he is the president. I thought he was the better choice 17 months ago and I just have to be patient that he will get better results soon.
I am not an idealogue like many on this forum. I want change from my government and I believe it is possible.
Agreed.....when will the GOP start in with Pawlenty of opposition?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2011, 11:59:12 AM
I'd say that's pretty idealistic ;)
I agree. I do think it is possible.
I have been a student of government my whole life. My mother was the city hall reporter for the TulsaWorld when I in school and my B.A. was in political science. I have worked for 13 different governments in my career and have served on state and national environmental boards. I went to government schools and most of my relatives have served in the military.
Government can make a positive difference in lives. Government is not just an necessary evil. I know hundreds of government employees who work incredibly hard for fair wages who make my life better.
By reading the comments of gaspar and guido, you would think that everything connected to government is inefficient, corrupt and just trying to interfere with their life. They act like if it is government, it should be spit on.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 12:07:21 PM
I agree. I do think it is possible.
I have been a student of government my whole life. My mother was the city hall reporter for the TulsaWorld when I in school and my B.A. was in political science. I have worked for 13 different governments in my career and have served on state and national environmental boards. I went to government schools and most of my relatives have served in the military.
Government can make a positive difference in lives. Government is not just an necessary evil. I know hundreds of government employees who work incredibly hard for fair wages who make my life better.
By reading the comments of gaspar and guido, you would think that everything connected to government is inefficient, corrupt and just trying to interfere with their life. They act like if it is government, it should be spit on.
I don't believe that. I only believe that
some of the actions of government are inefficient, corrupt and attempts to control our lives. Primarily those actions that are adopted in the name of "fairness," and those that limit the economic freedom of the people. Government cannot give without taking, and there is not a single example of efficient behavior in this respect.
We are a nation of people of diverse mindsets and an increasing number of us are demanding that our sustenance be derived from government distribution. This is the natural evolution of a free society. There will always be a small number of us that resist this political progress, because we understand the path. Ultimately we can do nothing to stop it, but perhaps we can wake up a few minds to slow the progression.
In the long run progressive politics always wins, and societies become centralized, socialized, and individual economic liberty regulated. It is a losing battle for conservatives, and those of us with a libertarian mindset, however the battle is worth it if only to preserve a small portion of our freedoms for our children to enjoy.
Don't let us bother you. In the end, we are losers. Progressive politics wins, because it promises everything it cannot deliver.
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O'Rourke
In increasing numbers, Americans believe that it is the responsibility – nay, the duty – of the federal government to take the earnings of some Americans and redistribute them to other Americans for various and sundry "good" reasons including "fairness." Citizens who know it is wrong to use force to take money from a neighbor have rationalized that it is OK for the government to do it for them. – Linda Bowles
The fact throughout history is that whenever government dominates the economic affairs of its citizenry, a free society is eroded, then destroyed, and a minority government ensues. Personal liberty without economic liberty is an absolute contradiction; the one cannot exist without the other. – William E. Simon
What seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by a government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition. – Learned Hand
In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs. – Walter Lippmann
Central planning will eventually destroy individual liberty by concentrating all political power in one person or in a committee; furthermore, it will eventually end our prosperity by laying the dead hand of state control on the economy. – Robert M. Thornton
gaspar...
This is a good conversation. I am going to start another thread. Please post these ideas over there...
I'm borrowing the P.J. O'Rourke comment.
Well this is an interesting reminder from Rumsfeld.
Libya did have weapons grade plutonium.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001010.php
The Germans have pulled out.
"Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HSX8Sxp2
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 04:07:37 PM
The Germans have pulled out.
"Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HSX8Sxp2
Wow is that misleading. I guess it's which style of journalism you prefer.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_7295.shtml (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_7295.shtml)
"Germany Pulls Out of NATO No-Fly Zone Operations in Libya"
QuoteGermany decided to pull its ships out of NATO patrols in the Mediterranean Wednesday in an effort to stay out of the no-fly military operation by coalition forces.
Germany withdrew two frigates and two support vessels with a total of 550 sailors from NATO's command and put them under its own orders, Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere told The New York Times.
Berlin's move came after NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the alliance would intercept vessels suspected of bringing illegal arms or mercenaries into Libya.
"All allies are committed to meet their responsibilities under the United Nations resolution," he said. Germany abstained on the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the no-fly zone.
De Maiziere said because the mission permits force if necessary, Germany will not join in.
"Either we take part or we don't," he said. NATO "must make it possible for other opinions," he added.
On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel won Cabinet approval Wednesday to send up to 300 more troops to Afghanistan.
"This would be a genuine relief for NATO and a political sign of our solidarity with our allies, particularly against the backdrop of recent events in Libya," de Maiziere said.
This is not war!
According to the White House today, lobbing bombs and killing folks is now to be called "Kinetic Military Action."
Put that in your "Carcinogenic Vapor Aspiration Appliance" and smoke it!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 24, 2011, 09:55:16 AM
This is not war!
According to the White House today, lobbing bombs and killing folks is now to be called "Kinetic Military Action."
Put that in your "Carcinogenic Vapor Aspiration Appliance" and smoke it!
Where've you been? War is something we use against drugs or illegal immigration. Sometimes we use it against people trying to take down governments friendly to our military bases.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 24, 2011, 09:55:16 AM
According to the White House today, lobbing bombs and killing folks is now to be called "Kinetic Military Action."
Or, "KMA" for short.
Coincidence?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 24, 2011, 09:55:16 AM
This is not war!
According to the White House today, lobbing bombs and killing folks is now to be called "Kinetic Military Action."
Put that in your "Carcinogenic Vapor Aspiration Appliance" and smoke it!
Yeah, it is not a war. Glad you finally caught on to the difference between Military Actions and war. Only took you 3 military actions over the last 10 years to figure it out.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 24, 2011, 10:34:03 AM
Yeah, it is not a war. Glad you finally caught on to the difference between Military Actions and war. Only took you 3 military actions over the last 10 years to figure it out.
So bombing countries who pose no immediate threat to the United States is not an act of war now?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2011, 10:35:45 AM
So bombing countries who pose no immediate threat to the United States is not an act of war now?
fify. Duh! :P
Looks like the ol' 180 skiddoo has taken place in regards to how people are looking at military practices with the change in administration.
Quote from: guido911 on March 24, 2011, 10:56:19 AM
fify. Duh! :P
It's an intervention.
We're dealing with a crazy man....he takes drugs and has a personal blonde. He's bullying innocents trying to depose of him. He's not Sheen. But yet again, case precedent is Ronald Reagan. His bombing missions weren't war. And he bailed on Lebanon and ran away. So let's be clear, Obomba did what Newt and his little followers said he should do with a "no fly zone" (maybe Obomba knew he was referring to the zipping zone on Newts crotch).. ...wait a minute. Newt now thinks differently?
http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=4385 Olberdusche is BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 24, 2011, 11:57:41 AM
It's an intervention.
We're dealing with a crazy man....he takes drugs and has a personal blonde. He's bullying innocents trying to depose of him. He's not Sheen. But yet again, case precedent is Ronald Reagan. His bombing missions weren't war. And he bailed on Lebanon and ran away. So let's be clear, Obomba did what Newt and his little followers said he should do with a "no fly zone" (maybe Obomba knew he was referring to the zipping zone on Newts crotch).. ...wait a minute. Newt now thinks differently?
http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=4385 Olberdusche is BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same could be said for Iraq. 100's of 1000's of Kurds would agree if they were still alive.
Rwanda anyone?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2011, 12:07:33 PM
The same could be said for Iraq. 100's of 1000's of Kurds would agree if they were still alive.
Rwanda anyone?
No thanks, I stopped smoking.
Quote from: Townsend on March 24, 2011, 11:01:02 AM
Looks like the ol' 180 skiddoo has taken place in regards to how people are looking at military practices with the change in administration.
I agree with that. Bush's wars? All wrongful, illegal and immoral. Obama's wars? Justified, necessary, and entirely lawful.
Here's an interesting take on Obama and Bush's wars.
http://bigpeace.com/shazlett/2011/03/22/iraq-vs-libya-exposing-left-wing-hypocrisy/
I especially like the graph at the end (though a colorable argument can be made that it is incomplete)
Quote from: guido911 on March 24, 2011, 12:41:51 PM
I agree with that. Bush's wars? All wrongful, illegal and immoral. Obama's wars? Justified, necessary, and entirely lawful.
And your god was wrong.
"3. America Has No Clear Exit Strategy"
Good news, we already exited. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42247045/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42247045/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/) Now Nato needs an exit strategy. Granted we didn't enter, just threw rocks from across the fence. We probably should have started this when the rebels started up. Instead of when their backs were against the wall.
Quote from: guido911 on March 24, 2011, 12:41:51 PM
I agree with that. Bush's wars? All wrongful, illegal and immoral. Obama's wars? Justified, necessary, and entirely lawful.
Have you been smoking grass? Have you already forgotten Afghanistan?
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2011, 01:15:25 AM
Have you been smoking grass? Have you already forgotten Afghanistan?
What about Afghanistan should I be remembering?
Quote from: guido911 on March 26, 2011, 09:09:46 AM
What about Afghanistan should I be remembering?
Think about how it might relate to your dig against liberals in the part of your post I quoted.
Well isn't this nice. Libya was no imminent threat to the U.S. says, you guessed it, the Dept. of Defense Secretary.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html
Breathlessly awaiting the Obama reach-arounders response.
Quote from: guido911 on March 27, 2011, 12:43:57 PM
Well isn't this nice. Libya was no imminent threat to the U.S. says, you guessed it, the Dept. of Defense Secretary.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html
Breathlessly awaiting the Obama reach-arounders response.
Anticipating it tonight. A strong speech from the president on the de facto reasons for our actions. I am sure that he will line out the reasons clearly in a 1. 2. 3. manner and be concise about level of involvement and exit strategy for our support assets as well as the special forces on the ground.
Typically this kind of speech comes before military action, or on the eve of a strike, but he was out of town. The speech will only be 20 minutes, so he will have to make his points early and clearly.
Not sure why only 20 minutes for such an important or anticipated address, but I'm sure there's a dinner in honor of "The Situation" or something that he has to get to. Typically I would visit Whitehouse.gov and look at his schedule, but they've stopped posting the presidential schedule for President Obama.
You criticize the President before he speaks by questioning how long his speech is anticipated to last?
Wow.
Why don't you criticize what you think he will be wearing? Don't forget to criticize in advance the lighting in the room and your negative thoughts on his eyebrows. How come he entered the room walking instead of running to the podium? Oh look, the President only spoke in English. He must not be able to communicate to millions of Americans in their native language.
How dare he have a name with more vowels than consonants. He probably will use big words when he surely knows that many Americans don't have high school degrees. I know, I will criticize him for waiting till nighttime to speak. He knows that seniors go to bed early and he must be trying to hide something from them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 28, 2011, 08:45:36 AM
You criticize the President before he speaks by questioning how long his speech is anticipated to last?
Wow.
Why don't you criticize what you think he will be wearing? Don't forget to criticize in advance the lighting in the room and your negative thoughts on his eyebrows. How come he entered the room walking instead of running to the podium? Oh look, the President only spoke in English. He must not be able to communicate to millions of Americans in their native language.
How dare he have a name with more vowels than consonants. He probably will use big words when he surely knows that many Americans don't have high school degrees. I know, I will criticize him for waiting till nighttime to speak. He knows that seniors go to bed early and he must be trying to hide something from them.
I'm not alone, and there is equal scrutiny coming from the left and the right on this late speech. I did not criticize, I simply laid out what I anticipate, or at least what I think would be logical for the president to discuss.
I may be wrong, he may take the time to discuss his brackets, but I am hopeful that he will address the issues that EVERYONE wants to hear about.
1. Level of involvement.
2. Timescale.
3. Endgame (What is the goal?)
The third point is the most important since there have been so many conflicting reports. Do we intend to get rid of Gaddafi? Was this just a hit-and-run so that the rebels can gain an upper hand? What do we do if Gaddafi remains in power? Now that we've learned that Al Qaeda is fighting with the rebels, do we continue to provide support?
I will hold off any further criticism until tomorrow. :-X
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 28, 2011, 08:45:36 AM
You criticize the President before he speaks by questioning how long his speech is anticipated to last?
Wow.
Why don't you criticize what you think he will be wearing? Don't forget to criticize in advance the lighting in the room and your negative thoughts on his eyebrows. How come he entered the room walking instead of running to the podium? Oh look, the President only spoke in English. He must not be able to communicate to millions of Americans in their native language.
How dare he have a name with more vowels than consonants. He probably will use big words when he surely knows that many Americans don't have high school degrees. I know, I will criticize him for waiting till nighttime to speak. He knows that seniors go to bed early and he must be trying to hide something from them.
If we go by their rule book for when Bush was in office we could call these folks "anti-American" and "he hates our country".
Quote from: guido911 on March 27, 2011, 12:43:57 PM
Breathlessly awaiting the Obama reach-arounders response.
For someone with big hate you come off very small.
Quote from: Townsend on March 28, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
For someone with big hate you come off very small.
And there is the response.
Quote from: guido911 on March 28, 2011, 02:04:07 PM
And there is the response.
I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US. Did you?
EDIT: And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US. Did you?
EDIT: And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.
Does this mean he's going to move to impeach himself?
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US. Did you?
EDIT: And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.
I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:
Quote
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?
Quote from: guido911 on March 28, 2011, 02:21:53 PM
I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?
Guid. . .there was clearly no attack here, no war. This was simply a kinetic military activity. An aggressive aircraft exhibition resulting in the expedited entropy of foreign military concerns.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 02:44:20 PM
Guid. . .there was clearly no attack here, no war. This was simply a kinetic military activity. An aggressive aircraft exhibition resulting in the expedited entropy of foreign military concerns.
That settles it. I feel much better now.
Quote from: guido911 on March 28, 2011, 02:21:53 PM
I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?
I can't.
Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground. I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office. I would put this decision squarely in that category. You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.
He's put a lot of stock in governing from a pragmatic position, rather than from ideology. And he gets a lot of grief from the lefty ideologists for compromising this or that lefty tenet in the name of pragmatism, which he seems to do distressingly often. On a personal level I can see both sides, and understand that the world doesn't always square with your ideology, even though I wish I had a president who could ideologically push back against the conservative slant the country's taken in the last decade.
In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 03:12:34 PM
I can't.
Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground. I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office. I would put this decision squarely in that category. You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.
He's put a lot of stock in governing from a pragmatic position, rather than from ideology. And he gets a lot of grief from the lefty ideologists for compromising this or that lefty tenet in the name of pragmatism, which he seems to do distressingly often. On a personal level I can see both sides, and understand that the world doesn't always square with your ideology, even though I wish I had a president who could ideologically push back against the conservative slant the country's taken in the last decade.
In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.
There was no need for the President to act fast in this case. Since when did the United States become the referee in every little civil uprising around the globe?
President Bush was vilified as a liar acting on much less "clouded" intelligence which was the same intel former President Clinton as well as Congress believed to have been true.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 28, 2011, 03:38:21 PM
There was no need for the President to act fast in this case. Since when did the United States become the referee in every little civil uprising around the globe?
Yes there was a need to act fast. McCain says he didn't act fast enough and I tend to agree. We let the rebels keep fighting until they were basically going to be wiped out. Then we started bombing. We probably should have started lobbing some missles earlier. Though the view that this was not necessary to our security any more so than Iraq is correct. So any complaints anybody had about bombing Iraq would be the same as Libya. Now, if you are comparing occupying a country for 10 years to bombing targets and having NATO takeover. That isn't exactly the same thing.
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 03:12:34 PM
Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground. I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office. I would put this decision squarely in that category. You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.
. . .
In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.
That first paragraph is interesting on many levels. Lets break it down.
QuotePresidents have to act fast
Not even worth addressing, just Bahahahahah! Took 31 days (could have consulted some folks in that time. Aye?).
Quote. . .have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground.
Uh, I agree, but there was this other guy. . .never mind.
QuoteI think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office.
Yes, as I've stated before this has been a wonderful personal journey for him. He's learning. Someday I'm sure he will make a great leader.
QuoteYou'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.
Just chalk it up to experience.
QuoteIn any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.
Hey Guid, reach-around initiated.
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 03:12:34 PM
In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.
Like an actual armed rebellion.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 28, 2011, 03:45:21 PM
Like an actual armed rebellion.
You're right. The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
You're right. The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.
Objection! Relevance
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
You're right. The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.
Yeah, but the dead Kurds are like the Holocaust and Rwanda...never happened.
And along the lines of Iraq, did we not learn our lesson? We kept Hussein on a short leash from 1991 until we invaded again in 2002. We've kept Gadaffi on a short leash since 1986. Again why the sudden rush for a regime change? As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?
Quite possible for us to wind up with another long-term occupation in Libya as well Trog, unless we just want to go in and destabilize the entire Middle East. Iraq was initially a NATO mission as well. As we can see, it all eventually wound up in our lap.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 28, 2011, 03:55:35 PM
Yeah, but the dead Kurds are like the Holocaust and Rwanda...never happened.
And along the lines of Iraq, did we not learn our lesson? We kept Hussein on a short leash from 1991 until we invaded again in 2002. We've kept Gadaffi on a short leash since 1986. Again why the sudden rush for a regime change? As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?
Quite possible for us to wind up with another long-term occupation in Libya as well Trog, unless we just want to go in and destabilize the entire Middle East. Iraq was initially a NATO mission as well. As we can see, it all eventually wound up in our lap.
Has anybody actually been paying attention to anything about Libya?
First, has Obama said we will lead in the coalition to invade Libya with our ground troops? No he said he wouldn't send them in.
"should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will
lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him." -GWB
Does overthrowing a government lead to a power vacuum? Yes absolutely. But it sounds like you think we should bomb the rebels so that the country would be more stable. The only reason why we bombed or did anything in Libya is because they have an active rebellion. You know... They held actual cities. Had military defectors. The reason for bombing was to give them time to organize and to help with their superior firepower (but calling it protecting civilians of course).
Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.
"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gadhafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gadhafi's people are professional fighters."http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/032111_Pentagon_Gadhafi_forces_in_disarray_after_assault.html
Quote from: Trogdor on March 28, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
Has anybody actually been paying attention to anything about Libya?
First, has Obama said we will lead in the coalition to invade Libya with our ground troops? No he said he wouldn't send them in.
"should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him." -GWB
Does overthrowing a government lead to a power vacuum? Yes absolutely. But it sounds like you think we should bomb the rebels so that the country would be more stable. The only reason why we bombed or did anything in Libya is because they have an active rebellion. You know... They held actual cities. Had military defectors. The reason for bombing was to give them time to organize and to help with their superior firepower (but calling it protecting civilians of course).
Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.
"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gadhafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gadhafi's people are professional fighters."
http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/032111_Pentagon_Gadhafi_forces_in_disarray_after_assault.html
Where did you draw that conclusion from? I really wonder about your's and other's critical reading skills at times. Seems to follow the more liberal mindset.
I don't advocate any sort of military action in Libya right now. There are no strategic U.S. interests at stake. It's a civil uprising in a sovereign nation.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 28, 2011, 04:26:12 PM
Where did you draw that conclusion from? I really wonder about your's and other's critical reading skills at times. Seems to follow the more liberal mindset.
I don't advocate any sort of military action in Libya right now. There are no strategic U.S. interests at stake. It's a civil uprising in a sovereign nation.
But what about European oil interests???? Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP! Right?
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189613_214417811907221_136264019722601_992272_4396938_n.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 04:47:02 PM
But what about European oil interests???? Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP! Right?
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189613_214417811907221_136264019722601_992272_4396938_n.jpg)
Let 'em hire mercenaries.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 04:53:41 PM
They did!
Let 'em hire more. I think there's a bunch of idle insurgents in Iraq looking for a good conflict right now.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 28, 2011, 03:55:35 PM
As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?
You are worried about the stability of Libya. The most stable Libya can be in the near term is with the current Regime. As you correctly stated, successfully overthrowing the government will create a power vacuum. So, under the assumption that the best case scenario for the United States is to have the most stable Libya possible in the short term. The failure of the civilian uprising is in our best interests (no power vacuum). So, the quicker the rebellion is squashed the more stable Libya will be.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 28, 2011, 04:47:02 PM
But what about European oil interests???? Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP! Right?
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189613_214417811907221_136264019722601_992272_4396938_n.jpg)
So you are saying that overthrowing the government is going to help major oil companies with existing agreements with Gaddafi? I am pretty sure all existing oil contracts would be invalidated and new agreements would have to be made. Are you assuming that the new government will have better contracts and those with existing contracts will come out better?
I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/)) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:
"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 10:17:13 PM
I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/)) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:
"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."
You can find the video online on msnbc. Sure it will be up many places.
It was the standard President Obama "But" speech.
"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."
"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."
"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."
That seems to sum up all of his speeches. He gives his passionate position and then says "but" and explains why he is acting opposite. Or. . . He says what people want to hear and then adds "but" and explains why he is not doing that.
The wife and I spent about an hour on YouTube going through his past speeches laughing at this pattern.
Over all he gave Luke-warm speech that provided some explanation, but I think it will be even less acceptable to liberals because he sounded like President Obama trying to sound like President Bush sans-commitment.
I am happy that he started by recognizing American exceptionalism.
He brought up the argument against him. Then brought up his statement why he is right. He was responding to criticism, so he gave both sides of the story. This helps educate the many that have no idea what is going on.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 29, 2011, 07:40:40 AM
This helps educate the many that have no idea what is going on.
Unless they don't listen or refuse to listen or are confused by the scary guy on television with the "furiner's" name.
Quote from: we vs us on March 28, 2011, 10:17:13 PM
I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/)) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:
"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."
When did you start reading neo-con blogs? ;)
Trog, it's deeper than that.
His speeches can be broken down into this:
First part of sentence = [understood reality of the situation]
"BUT"
Second part of sentence = [what President Obama actually believes is of primary importance]
You're right, this allows him to present both sides of an argument and in many cases take neither. Politics for politics sake. Listen for it and you will not be disappointed. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 08:36:39 AM
Trog, it's deeper than that.
His speeches can be broken down into this:
First part of sentence = [understood reality of the situation]
"BUT"
Second part of sentence = [what President Obama actually believes is of primary importance]
You're right, this allows him to present both sides of an argument and in many cases take neither. Politics for politics sake. Listen for it and you will not be disappointed. ;)
Every But from last night. Doesn't seem to be used for point/counterpoint though.
Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges.
But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator,
but to its people.
And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.
But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right.
Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future.
But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.
But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power.
but it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened,
but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone,
but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act –
but the burden of action should not be America's alone.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that.
but we can make a difference.
but let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country,
but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
I did not say point/counterpoint.
Exactly as I stated above. . .reality of situation/Obama's position.
ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer article about the speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_analysis (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_analysis)
Quote from: Townsend on March 29, 2011, 10:19:16 AM
ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer article about the speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_analysis (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_analysis)
I think that has always been the primary complaint about President Obama. He can't stop campaigning.
"His address at the National Defense University echoed campaign rhetoric about restoring U.S. moral pride of place after squandering it in Iraq."
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 10:29:59 AM
I think that has always been the primary complaint about President Obama. He can't stop campaigning.
You mean other than "Muslim", birthers, "community activist", race, etc.?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 10:16:35 AM
I did not say point/counterpoint.
Exactly as I stated above. . .reality of situation/Obama's position.
i'm seeing a pattern here. Trog seems to enjoy drawing other people's conclusions for them.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 10:16:35 AM
I did not say point/counterpoint.
Exactly as I stated above. . .reality of situation/Obama's position.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2011, 11:19:51 AM
i'm seeing a pattern here. Trog seems to enjoy drawing other people's conclusions for them.
I used your statement to reply to as to the over use of the word But. To let others gather their conclusions and have it all in spot. I never once claimed that you said that it was point/counter point.
I said that based on my memory of the speech in which you replied. I was stating that it was not the case as I remembered.
Every But from last night. Doesn't seem to be used for point/counterpoint though.Your quote that I did reply to specifically shows you stating that it was NOT point counterpoint as I said. I was simply agreeing with you but didn't feel like double quoting me then you.
Quote from: Townsend on March 29, 2011, 10:33:05 AM
You mean other than "Muslim", birthers, "community activist", race, etc.?
I want all of you whiners that complain about how I dig at people to remember T's post in the future. This is his M.O as well. And no, I do not fear "furiners" either.
Edited.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2011, 11:19:51 AM
i'm seeing a pattern here. Trog seems to enjoy drawing other people's conclusions for them.
It's easier for all of us that way. ;D
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 12:41:50 PM
I want all of you whiners that complain about how I dig at people to remember T's post in the future. This is his M.O as well. And no, I do not fear "furiners" either.
What are you trying to see in my post Ahab?
You disagree that there're more complaints about him being a Muslim? Complaints from birthers? His history as a community activist? Those sure seem to be more of a "primary complaint" than "he can't stop campaigning".
You've certainly complained more about his community activism than his intolerable campaigning.
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 12:41:50 PM
I want all of you whiners that complain about how I dig at people ...
When we disagree with you or your tactics and you call US whiners...
Quote from: Townsend on March 29, 2011, 12:49:34 PM
What are you trying to see in my post Ahab?
You disagree that there're more complaints about him being a Muslim? Complaints from birthers? His history as a community activist? Those sure seem to be more of a "primary complaint" than "he can't stop campaigning".
You've certainly complained more about his community activism than his intolerable campaigning.
What freakin ever.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 29, 2011, 12:51:16 PM
When we disagree with you or your tactics and you call US whiners...
T whines/digs all the time. Hell, go back to this dig at me last week.
QuoteI agree with that. Bush's wars? All wrongful, illegal and immoral. Obama's wars? Justified, necessary, and entirely lawful.
And your god was wrong.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=17113.msg192493#msg192493
Hey T, was it you that got all wee wee'd up and bolted from this forum a while back? I cannot remember.
Edited to add.
And another thing, this forum is blessed with one dooshbag @asshat poster that has appointed himself as its policeman. Just to give you a little context, since these two are on YOUR side.
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 01:09:47 PM
And another thing, this forum is blessed with one dooshbag @asshat poster that has appointed himself as its policeman. Just to give you a little context, since these two are on YOUR side.
Yes, guido, your complaints about other posters are righteous and moral. A shining beacon, not unlike the bat signal, to your fellow travelers. But when other people comment about your behavior, that's a baaaad, baaaad thing. You're being silenced! Silenced, I say!
Fight the man, brother!
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Yes, guido, your complaints about other posters are righteous and moral. A shining beacon, not unlike the bat signal, to your fellow travelers. But when other people comment about your behavior, that's a baaaad, baaaad thing. You're being silenced! Silenced, I say!
Fight the man, brother!
I do not deny going after some folks in here. What gets me is the unwillingness of others going after their own because of ideology/love fest.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Yes, guido, your complaints about other posters are righteous and moral. A shining beacon, not unlike the bat signal, to your fellow travelers. But when other people comment about your behavior, that's a baaaad, baaaad thing. You're being silenced! Silenced, I say!
Fight the man, brother!
Ah yes, the ad-hominem. How intellectually puny. But it's expected.
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 01:39:47 PM
I do not deny going after some folks in here. What gets me is the unwillingness of others going after their own because of ideology/love fest/group grope.
I was reading a bit on Obama's speech last night and came across (no Beavis/Butthead laugh) this article from the AP which provides an angle I had not considered re: handing control of the Libya mission to NATO.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42314188/ns/politics-white_house/
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 01:39:47 PM
I do not deny going after some folks in here. What gets me is the unwillingness of others going after their own because of ideology/love fest.
I don't know about you, but if I commented on every single bit of what I see as stupid or illogical thinking on this forum, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles. I try to keep to my policy of joining in any circle jerks regardless of party affiliation, thanks.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2011, 01:34:47 PM
Yes, guido, your complaints about other posters are righteous and moral. A shining beacon, not unlike the bat signal, to your fellow travelers. But when other people comment about your behavior, that's a baaaad, baaaad thing. You're being silenced! Silenced, I say!
Fight the man, brother!
All right Nate, you asked for it:
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 02:22:35 PM
All right Nate, you asked for it:
I'M MEEEELLLLLTTTTTIIIIINNNGGGGG!!!!1!!!one
Can we please reorder the days of the week now?
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 01:09:47 PM
Hey T, was it you that got all wee wee'd up and bolted from this forum a while back? I cannot remember.
Got tired of listening to your personal attacks.
I got over it.
Sounds like you've put on your skirt and can't handle any disagreements.
Quote from: Townsend on March 29, 2011, 02:59:49 PM
Got tired of listening to your personal attacks.
I got over it.
Sounds like you've put on your skirt and can't handle any disagreements.
Townsend we don't need these sexist remarks on the board. His wife makes more money than him.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 29, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
Townsend we don't need these sexist remarks on the board. His wife makes more money than him.
Bygones
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 01:43:58 PM
I was reading a bit on Obama's speech last night and came across (no Beavis/Butthead laugh) this article from the AP which provides an angle I had not considered re: handing control of the Libya mission to NATO.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42314188/ns/politics-white_house/
It's called "Spinning Hats."
On Wednesday the mission will be turned over to a Canadian three-star general, Charles Bouchard. Bouchard will answer to Admiral Locklear, United States Navy, and Supreme NATO Commander Admiral James G. Stavridis, United States Navy, both of whom answer to President Obama as their Commander in Chief.
We are still in charge, but we get to spread around the blame for anything that goes wrong.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
We are still in charge, but we get to spread around the blame for anything that goes wrong.
President Bush should have been that smart.
Quote from: Townsend on March 29, 2011, 02:59:49 PM
Got tired of listening to your personal attacks.
I got over it.
Sounds like you've put on your skirt and can't handle any disagreements.
That's rich. You tuck tail and run from this forum and you got the nads to accuse me of wearing a skirt?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2011, 04:18:09 PM
President Bush should have been that smart.
He wasn't.
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
That's rich. You tuck tail and run from this forum and you got the nads to accuse me of wearing a skirt?
I think you would look absolutely dashing in a skirt. :-*
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
I think you would look absolutely dashing in a skirt. :-*
Better than a Rottweiler?
Quote from: guido911 on March 29, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
That's rich. You tuck tail and run from this forum and you got the nads to accuse me of wearing a skirt?
"that's rich"? "tuck tail"?
Do you still say "rue the day"?
You're insults are weak and meaningless. You attempt to drift the thread so you can start some girl fight about how you're mistreated or some crap.
Get a new gig.
Meanwhile, in Libya...
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2011, 04:18:09 PM
President Bush should have been that smart.
Would have been, should have been, couldn't have been.
" this movement of change cannot be turned back"
It's that inevitability of the Arab Spring wave that has made the difference.
That and the fact that BushCheney is no longer the driving force. This administration has, rhetorically, been with the protestors, paving the way for change at the international level while scrupulously avoiding getting into it at the local level. In the case of Libya, the imminent massacre was the spur that drove US to action. Had this been a McCain/Palin administration, we'd have helped Mubarak squash the Egyptian People, helped Ben Ali squash the Tunisian People and the rest of the Arab Spring would have been aborted before it got rolling.
This is exactly the difference that I voted for.
The Bush Doctrine foreign policy that aims for world hegemony, that emphasizes a go-it-alone posture, that abandons diplomacy and embraces firepower, has brought US nothing but trouble, hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, trillions in debt, major damage to our international relations and prestige. Obama's approach is diametricaly opposed, cooperation, coalition, not of the billing, but a genuine coalition of our allies and of the Arab League, exhausting non-violent means before committing force, taking a supporting role, handing off command, et cetera.
Just try to picture Dick Cheney making that speech. Or McCain.
Actually, forget it, neither of them would have worked it this way so the speech would never be given.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2011, 04:28:33 PM
I think you would look absolutely dashing in a skirt. :-*
I feel pretty, oh so pretty...
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3l6zmOzxE_uVMOlUUXJO19eM2uriiE922F1nz30W7mL184c9tvA)
So pretty...
(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/discover-peggy-russian.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2011, 09:13:36 PM
So pretty...
(http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/discover-peggy-russian.jpg)
I've seen better looking Peggys.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 29, 2011, 09:37:25 PM
I've seen better looking Peggys.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm66/stephanieandjoe/Cartoon/Futurama/LEELA.jpg)
Now that's a Peggy!
Hey, we all know that she is a Cyclops (one eye). What do you call someone with two eyes?
Wait for it...
Here it comes....
A Bi-cyclops.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 29, 2011, 10:39:00 PM
Now that's a Peggy!
Hey, we all know that she is a Cyclops (one eye). What do you call someone with two eyes?
Wait for it...
Here it comes....
A Bi-cyclops.
did you just admit to being bi?
This crowd has no appreciation of the television greats..
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2011, 09:43:17 PM
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm66/stephanieandjoe/Cartoon/Futurama/LEELA.jpg)
Wait, that's Leela, not Peggy....
Quote from: custosnox on March 29, 2011, 11:16:40 PM
Wait, that's Leela, not Peggy....
Getting closer... ;)
Feeling better about the Libyan mission now that I have heard Geraldo Rivera is heading over there.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=544503&id=187358377963857
Reuters just tweeted that "Obama has signed secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters"
http://mobile.twitter.com/reuters/status/53182729667346432
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
It's just hitting the other major news sources.
Marine troops have also been mobilized from camp Lejune. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit Embarks To Libya today With 2,200 Marines.
What a difference a day makes.
Does this mean that Oliver North is coming out of retirement? ;)
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 30, 2011, 04:49:37 PM
Does this mean that Oliver North is coming out of retirement? ;)
He retired?
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
Some one told me they saw Fawn Hall buying paper shredders at Staples today.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 30, 2011, 04:42:43 PM
Reuters just tweeted that "Obama has signed secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters"
It's just hitting the other major news sources.
Marine troops have also been mobilized from camp Lejune. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit Embarks To Libya today With 2,200 Marines.
CIA's been there. NYT posted that this morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 30, 2011, 04:42:43 PM
Marine troops have also been mobilized from camp Lejune. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit Embarks To Libya today With 2,200 Marines.
Where are you getting that info? I can't find it on any reliable site.
They'll actually be on Libyan soil? Fighting along side the rebels?
Quote from: Townsend on March 30, 2011, 05:12:05 PM
Where are you getting that info? I can't find it on any reliable site.
They'll actually be on Libyan soil? Fighting along side the rebels?
Why do you think that would be on any site.......
Quote from: Townsend on March 30, 2011, 05:12:05 PM
Where are you getting that info? I can't find it on any reliable site.
They'll actually be on Libyan soil? Fighting along side the rebels?
They will be doing what's called Sea-baseing where they launch strike missions, recon and support from landing craft and the air. Because only a small T.A.R.P contingent will remain on the ground, they feel justified in claiming "no boots on the ground."
OMG, Gaspar, can't you cite once in while?
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27310482/detail.html
The 22nd MEU, is deploying in April to relieve the 26th MEU, which is currently supporting the action in Libya.
FYI: "The 22nd MEU is a Marine Air Ground Task Force comprised of Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment; Aviation Combat Element, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced); Logistics Combat Element, Combat Logistics Battalion 22; and the Command Element."
So, not so many boots on the ground included with this crew. Reads pretty clearly like air assets.
EDIT: However, if you read Barry Secrest at the Charlotte Conservative Examiner from last week (March 23) you'd have read this:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-charlotte/biden-threatens-a-president-on-consentless-war-nc-marines-embarq-to-libya
"Meanwhile, reports today indicate that the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, located in Camp Lejeune, NC, will be embarking to Libya in order to support and protect the Al Qaeda-member protesters who are at odds with Colonel Qaddafi, along with Libyan civilians located in the city of Ajdubiyah, Libya. The 26th MEU is comprised of about 2,200 Marines who are near the end of their current deployment. The press release from the 26th MEU contained a statement that read as follows:
"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."
There was no clear indication from initial reports as to where the 26th MEU will be operating from in or near Libya. However, the 26th MEU typically operates from sea-based platforms and are wholly self-sufficient. A Marine Expeditionary Unit is typically comprised of ground combat, command, aviation combat, and logistics combat elements, which negates the need for other types of support units.
There are seven total US Marine Corps Expeditionary Units in existence, with three units located on each coast and one located in Japan."
No boots but plenty of athletic shoes. Special issue of course.
We will see. LOL!
I do not understand what "Al Qaeda-member protesters" are that the marines are going support/protect as discussed in the second article posted by wevsus.
Quote from: guido911 on March 30, 2011, 06:55:40 PM
I do not understand what "Al Qaeda-member protesters" are that the marines are going support/protect as discussed in the second article posted by wevsus.
It's clearly nutjob code for "brown people." (The columnist clearly being a nutjob for using that phrasing)
Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2011, 07:10:04 PM
It's clearly nutjob code for "brown people." (The columnist clearly being a nutjob for using that phrasing)
Good. So I wasn't apparently losing my mind. This columnist/news person isn't alone in suggesting al Qaeda needs protection. Matt Lauer made a similar statement to Bachmann (:30).
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGSU6U2G
I think Lauer may have misspoke, but the "Compassion of al Qaeda" response was funny.
Hmm, it seems that there's a scheme afoot amongst the right wing nutjobs to claim that Obama is aiding al Qaeda with his choosing to participate in the intervention in Libya. How unsurprising..
Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
Hmm, it seems that there's a scheme afoot amongst the right wing nutjobs to claim that Obama is aiding al Qaeda with his choosing to participate in the intervention in Libya. How unsurprising..
With ever shifting loyalties in that part of the world, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an al Qaeda presence in the Libyan rebel ranks. Hopefully their numbers are down in the noise level. Hope is not a strategy though.
Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
Hmm, it seems that there's a scheme afoot amongst the right wing nutjobs to claim that Obama is aiding al Qaeda with his choosing to participate in the intervention in Libya. How unsurprising..
I KNOW you are not claiming that Matt Lauer is a right wing nutjob... As for this often accused RWRE, count me out of being in that group part of that "scheme". I am still smarting over being part of Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
Quote from: guido911 on March 30, 2011, 08:23:28 PM
I KNOW you are not claiming that Matt Lauer is a right wing nutjob... As for this often accused RWRE, count me out of being in that group part of that "scheme". I am still smarting over being part of Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
Bachmann and Secrest are the ones talking/writing about it as if it's a foregone conclusion that the rebels are largely or primarily composed of al Qaeda members, and then saying, as they do, "well, we don't really know who we're dealing with.
We just don't know..[dramatic pause]". It's the same smile they pulled during the "mosque" furor. It worked pretty well then, so they're dragging the trope out of the closet and giving it another whirl.
Lauer seemed to be asking if her allegation matters to begin with, regardless of it being true or false.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 30, 2011, 04:42:43 PM
Reuters just tweeted that "Obama has signed secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters"
http://mobile.twitter.com/reuters/status/53182729667346432
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
It's just hitting the other major news sources.
Marine troops have also been mobilized from camp Lejune. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit Embarks To Libya today With 2,200 Marines.
What a difference a day makes.
Apparently our air strikes and "diplomatic" pressure have not sufficiently impressed Uncle Moamar.
Boots on the ground? Surely you jest. I'm sure they are just advisors in advance of the French stabilizing the situation.
Wait a second....
Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
Hmm, it seems that there's a scheme afoot amongst the right wing nutjobs to claim that Obama is aiding al Qaeda with his choosing to participate in the intervention in Libya. How unsurprising..
(http://www.blrag.com/storage/conspiracy.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1250810355071)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 31, 2011, 06:25:16 AM
[image]
Your image doesn't show inline for me. Luckily, it works when typed directly into the address bar, so I can see what an epic failure your response was.
BTW, I have a bridge to sell you. One end is in Brooklyn, the other in Manhattan. I can let it go for a reasonable price.
Edited to add: It's OK, Bill doesn't understand either...
(http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6760488/e-mail-You-cant-explain-that.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Bill-O-Reilly)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 30, 2011, 10:44:12 PM
Apparently our air strikes and "diplomatic" pressure have not sufficiently impressed Uncle Moamar.
Boots on the ground? Surely you jest. I'm sure they are just advisors in advance of the French stabilizing the situation.
Wait a second....
I am very upset that they are sending covert teams into Libya. You mean they are just starting this? I would have assumed we would have supplied weapons and possible coordination support with the rebels when they started.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 31, 2011, 10:15:10 AM
I am very upset that they are sending covert teams into Libya. You mean they are just starting this? I would have assumed we would have supplied weapons and possible coordination support with the rebels when they started.
The problem with arming any faction in the Middle East is our troops will eventually face those weapons on the battlefield.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 31, 2011, 10:52:00 AM
The problem with arming any faction in the Middle East is our troops will eventually face those weapons on the battlefield.
And unfortunately the other side of that coin is that if we don't arm them Hamas and Hezbollah will. There has already been a massive influx on heavy vehicle mounted weaponry and of course the AKs.
It's the inevitable Catch 22 that we face involving ourselves in any civil war or rebellion initiated by a civilian force. The weaponry is only a small part of what we will need to supply. Ammunition for any weapons we supply as well as the legacy arms they currently have will also be necessary. Food, water, medicine and all of the human necessities for an unorganized force will also become the charge of NATO (us).
You can't say "we are only going to provide limited support." That's kind of like a "limited government program." They will be dependent on us, at least for several years if not more. This French idea of creating a "committee to run Libya" is. . .well. . .French!
If the French want to help so much, let them. Get us out.
Why RA? It's just getting good. It turns out we may wind up bombing both the Ghaddafi forces and rebel forces.
Quote"We've been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition," said a senior Obama administration official. "We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don't confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=3&src=twrhp
This poor fish is out of water, floping around on the bottom of the boat!
Rand Paul flummoxes Harry Reid?
QuoteGOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul's proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama's dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.
Republicans speculate that Reid was already irked, sensing disarray in his caucus over the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to block carbon regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Paul's proposal simply added fuel to the docket fire. Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 are quite sensitive to tricky amendment votes, and Reid, some say, may have simply thrown up his hands. For Democrats, a weekend to sort things things out is more appealing than a tense Friday in the cloakroom.
"Paul's Libya amendment has brought the Senate to a standstill because Reid doesn't know how to handle it," one GOP aide tells me. "If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-senator Obama or with President Obama. It's possible that Reid just yanks the bill or files cloture, seems he may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul's amendment."
Still, during a testy floor exchange Wednesday with Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), the Kentucky freshman argued that his amendment deserves a vote, and fast. "In Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the complaints from many people on these wars that we were involved in, President Bush did come and ask for the authorization of force," he said. "We've had two to three weeks of this issue. They had time to go to the U.N. They had time to go to the Arab League. They had time to go to everyone. I think you should be insulted the way I am insulted they never came to Congress."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263650/paul-rankles-reid-libya-robert-costa
Gadhafi, in letter, asks Obama to end air strikes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya
"– Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has appealed directly to President Barack Obama to halt what the Libyan leader called "an unjust war," and wished Obama good luck in his bid for re-election next year."
Wow
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 06, 2011, 01:23:33 PM
Gadhafi, in letter, asks Obama to end air strikes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya
"– Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has appealed directly to President Barack Obama to halt what the Libyan leader called "an unjust war," and wished Obama good luck in his bid for re-election next year."
Wow
He also pledged his support to the president in his 2012 election bid.
"We have been hurt more morally (than) physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne."
So we can add that to a bumper sticker.
Too verbose.
The shortened bumper sticker version: Arab Sprung
Nice try though...
You'd think they'd learn that bombing Ghadafi only ends up killing his kids and grandchildren.
Annals of a Golden Age
Peace Laureate Surpasses Reagan in Killing Gadafy Kin
"O how wonderful it is to live in such an enlightened age! Just think: not long ago, the U.S. government was seen as little more than a vast war machine -- brutal, murderous, inhumane, bent on global domination. Yet now, by some marvelous, miraculous twist of fate, that same government is being led by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate! It's as if Lyndon Johnson had been turfed out of office back in the day and replaced by Martin Luther King Jr.! So what the modern-day MLK up to today? In what way was the Laureate in the White House advancing the vision and practice of peace? Why, he was murdering children in a "targeted assassination," of course! He was escalating an increasingly savage "regime change" operation in blatant contradiction to the UN mandate supposedly governing the latest of his escalations and surges around the world."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27999.htm :(
You'd think that some people wouldn't be so credulous.
Well apparently there are now boots on the ground. The problem as reported is that they belong to the Sudanese army.
QuoteOfficials overseeing the no-fly zone enforced by Nato over Libya said the Sudanese move north of border had not encountered resistance from troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.
Since the February uprising against his regime, the Libyan leader's forces have been concentrated around Tripoli, the capital; Sirte, the eastern town that is Col Gaddafi's birthplace and Sebha, the desert outpost where the dictator grew up.
Officials said control of the town of Kufra and nearby military base granted the Sudanese a key strategic foothold between the regime and the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) which holds the eastern seaboard and a series of rebel enclaves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html
That's an interesting thought. Might they actually be the Sudanese mercenaries that Qadaffi has been known to be employing? (or were those guys from Chad?)
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 06:20:13 PM
That's an interesting thought. Might they actually be the Sudanese mercenaries that Qadaffi has been known to be employing? (or were those guys from Chad?)
There were Sudanese mercenaries fighting back in May. Could be the same folks?
QuoteBENGHAZI, Libya – Libyan rebels clashed Wednesday with Sudanese mercenaries fighting for Muammar al-Qaddafi near the border with Sudan, as President Barack Obama predicted the Libyan leader would be forced to step down if NATO keeps up its military campaign with the U.S. playing a key role.
Speaking at a news conference in London, Obama said the U.S.-led NATO coalition was engaged in "a slow, steady process in which we're able to wear down the regime forces."
"There will not be a let up in the pressure we are applying" on Qaddafi, Obama said. "I believe that we have built enough momentum that as long as we sustain the course we're on, he will step down."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/25/libyan-rebels-fight-sudanese-mercenaries-border/#ixzz1Qzt8N7NM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/25/libyan-rebels-fight-sudanese-mercenaries-border/
I didn't know about that.