Here’s the transcript of President Obama’s speech on Libya, announcing that NATO will be taking over operations, and carefully making the case for humanitarian intervention: Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya.
1 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:43:19am |
tough tightrope to walk, given our past foreign policy actions and inactions.
| 2 |
blueraven Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:47:22am |
Some compared him to Bush, but I dont see that at all. He made a case for multilateral intervention on a case by case basis, sharing the cost and responsibility.
Considering the strategic geopolitical significance of Libya, I think this intervention was the right thing to do, and was done in the right way. But it is always a gamble.
| 3 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:50:01am |
It takes 10 years and a democratic president for republicans to start caring about exit strategies and the costs of war. So now you know, for your own personal reference and usage in the future.
[from reddit]
| 4 |
thatthatisis Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:56:14am |
It's the Obama doctrine - GORT. And he's Klaatu.
This speech repeated the same themes from his Nobel Peach Prize acceptance speech. Essentially, the Obama doctrine says a man wants peace. But if that man is the leader of a country, he also must act to protect his country. But if that man is the leader of the free world, he also has a responsibility to stop future Holocausts. So how does a good man act, in an evil world? The President of the United States cannot turn the other cheek.
Where Obama came down is GORT. Remember the classic from the 50s - The Day the Earth Stood Still ? Klaatu, from another planet, comes to warn the Earth that if they continue wars with the violence of a WWII, then the all-powerful robot GORT will be forced to destroy the earth. That's pretty much what Obama is saying: I have the power to protect large populations from destruction by a tyrant, so I am duty-bound to use it. I think I buy it. If he'd been around in WWII, I can think of about 6 million people who might still be alive.
| 5 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:57:03am |
And now because he said it.
Wingnuts: Yeah it is! I couldn't tell a cutout of the two apart!
| 6 |
Vicious Michigan Union Thug Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:58:05am |
re: #4 thatthatisis
It's the Obama doctrine - GORT. And he's Klaatu.
This speech repeated the same themes from his Nobel Peach Prize acceptance speech. Essentially, the Obama doctrine says a man wants peace. But if that man is the leader of a country, he also must act to protect his country. But if that man is the leader of the free world, he also has a responsibility to stop future Holocausts. So how does a good man act, in an evil world? The President of the United States cannot turn the other cheek.
Where Obama came down is GORT. Remember the classic from the 50s - The Day the Earth Stood Still ? Klaatu, from another planet, comes to warn the Earth that if they continue wars with the violence of a WWII, then the all-powerful robot GORT will be forced to destroy the earth. That's pretty much what Obama is saying: I have the power to protect large populations from destruction by a tyrant, so I am duty-bound to use it. I think I buy it. If he'd been around in WWII, I can think of about 6 million people who might still be alive.
The birthers are saying that Obama is from another country, but you're saying that he's from a whole other planet?
/
| 7 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 10:59:15am |
re: #6 Alouette
The birthers are saying that Obama is from another country, but you're saying that he's from a whole other planet?
/
///He's also saying Obama isn't a human being but secretly a robot...
| 8 |
KingKenrod Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:00:03am |
NATO could have handled the mission from the beginning, and reacted much quicker than the UN. But Sarkozy blocked NATO's involvement, saying he did not want NATO to attack an Arab country without support from other Arab countries.
| 9 |
S'latch Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:01:37am |
It was a good address and he is doing a good job. I just hope he doesn't do a "mission accomplished."
| 10 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:02:38am |
| 11 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:06:05am |
My biggest concern is that the rebels aren't competent enough to get the job done. I think that even if we ship the arms and ammo they still won't be capable of finishing the job no matter how much air support we give them. There's also an issue of what a post Q'Daffy Libya would look like. If it dissolves into sectarian fighting and ethnic cleansing it could be a hell of a mess. I'd be happy to see Q'Daffy go but I'm not overly optimistic at this point. I suppose countries are going to have to eventually learn to live in democratic societies eventually but it's going to be a very painful process.
| 12 |
garhighway Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:06:26am |
re: #8 KingKenrod
NATO could have handled the mission from the beginning, and reacted much quicker than the UN. But Sarkozy blocked NATO's involvement, saying he did not want NATO to attack an Arab country without support from other Arab countries.
Multilateral's a bitch: it is so messy, having to get other people to agree with us, and having to compromise and wait and let other people talk and all of that.
But it is still the right way to do this.
| 13 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:08:06am |
re: #9 Lawrence Schmerel
It was a good address and he is doing a good job. I just hope he doesn't do a "mission accomplished."
I'm sure the wingnuts will find an equivalent. They're already parroting all the lefty talking points about Bush and they'll continue to snipe over meaningless symbolism, conspiracies and out of context statements. It might work.
| 14 |
watching you tiny alien kittens are Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:08:48am |
Sigh...
| 15 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:08:54am |
re: #13 Killgore Trout
I'm sure the wingnuts will find an equivalent. They're already parroting all the lefty talking points about Bush and they'll continue to snipe over meaningless symbolism, conspiracies and out of context statements. It might work.
I'm amused by all this.
| 16 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:11:09am |
re: #15 Varek Raith
I'm amused by all this.
So am I, kind of. I'm trying not to get too bitter about the sillier aspects of it.
| 17 |
treasured people Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:13:44am |
Israel soldiers and security forces Monday night arrested 60 more Arabs, including a deputy mayor, for DNA testing in the search for the murderers who massacred the Fogel family at Itamar two weeks ago.
The search has focused around the village of Awarta, which is located within view of Itamar. The latest arrests bring the number of Arabs questioned to approximately 100 since the brutal stabbings of Rabbi Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their six young children, including a three-month-old baby.
Israel has imposed a gag order on the investigation, but it is known that approximately 40 Arabs still are in custody.
Awarta mayor Qayas Awad, told the Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency, "They took samples for DNA tests and were fingerprinted before being interrogated. Some were released but more are being kept in custody.” One of those questioned is his deputy.
Palestinian Authority PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has said that he is sure Palestinian Authority Arabs were not involved in the Friday night slaughter, which most foreign media barely reported, while some news agencies stated that the killers were ”intruders.” None of the foreign reports referred to “terrorists,” a word usually reserved for attacks in news agencies’ native countries.
Israel does not practice capital punishment. This means that were the murderer to be identified, he might end up in a prisoner exchange at some time in the future. This is what happened in the case of an Arab who murdered two Jewish children on the northern coast of Israel. Many years later, he was freed, exchanged for the corpses of two Israeli reservists who were murdered by Hezbollah terrorists.
Israelis value life, and also the sanctity of their dead, to an extraordinary, holy, but perhaps nonsensical, degree.
| 18 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:15:15am |
re: #17 treasured people
You might want to create a page about this, since it's off-topic to the thread.
| 19 |
darthstar Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:15:39am |
It's all a part of the plot to turn us over to the radical islamist secular athiests. Don't take my word for it, just ask Newt Gingrich:
"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Yes, Gingrich is now flip-flopping within a single sentence.
[Link: religion.blogs.cnn.com...]
| 20 |
Four More Tears Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:16:44am |
re: #19 darthstar
A secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.
These words, they make no sense when put together...
| 21 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:17:00am |
re: #19 darthstar
It's all a part of the plot to turn us over to the radical islamist secular athiests. Don't take my word for it, just ask Newt Gingrich:
Yes, Gingrich is now flip-flopping within a single sentence.[Link: religion.blogs.cnn.com...]
Secular atheist society dominated by Islamists. You will be forced to pray to Allah and wear a burka for no particular reason.
| 22 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:17:09am |
re: #17 treasured people
Israel soldiers and security forces Monday night arrested 60 more Arabs, including a deputy mayor, for DNA testing in the search for the murderers who massacred the Fogel family at Itamar two weeks ago.
The search has focused around the village of Awarta, which is located within view of Itamar. The latest arrests bring the number of Arabs questioned to approximately 100 since the brutal stabbings of Rabbi Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their six young children, including a three-month-old baby.
Israel has imposed a gag order on the investigation, but it is known that approximately 40 Arabs still are in custody.
Awarta mayor Qayas Awad, told the Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency, "They took samples for DNA tests and were fingerprinted before being interrogated. Some were released but more are being kept in custody.” One of those questioned is his deputy.
Palestinian Authority PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has said that he is sure Palestinian Authority Arabs were not involved in the Friday night slaughter, which most foreign media barely reported, while some news agencies stated that the killers were ”intruders.” None of the foreign reports referred to “terrorists,” a word usually reserved for attacks in news agencies’ native countries.
Israel does not practice capital punishment. This means that were the murderer to be identified, he might end up in a prisoner exchange at some time in the future. This is what happened in the case of an Arab who murdered two Jewish children on the northern coast of Israel. Many years later, he was freed, exchanged for the corpses of two Israeli reservists who were murdered by Hezbollah terrorists.
Israelis value life, and also the sanctity of their dead, to an extraordinary, holy, but perhaps nonsensical, degree.
So, they're taking a law enforcement tack on this.
Well, that is what Darlington wanted.
| 23 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:18:07am |
re: #19 darthstar
It's all a part of the plot to turn us over to the radical islamist secular athiests. Don't take my word for it, just ask Newt Gingrich:
Yes, Gingrich is now flip-flopping within a single sentence.
[Link: religion.blogs.cnn.com...]
OOGA BOOGA!
| 24 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:18:48am |
re: #20 JasonA
A secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.
These words, they make no sense when put together...
| 25 |
darthstar Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:19:46am |
re: #20 JasonA
A secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.
These words, they make no sense when put together...
Hey, they're Gingrich's words, not mine.
| 26 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:19:54am |
re: #11 Killgore Trout
My biggest concern is that the rebels aren't competent enough to get the job done.
My biggest concern is that they take over large sections of Libya, and Q'Daffy is no where to be found. THEN the so called rebels start enforcing sharia law, and slaughtering anyone they accuse of being pro-Q'Daffy.
Early on I felt I understood who the protesters in Egypt were. I have no idea who these rebels are.
I do know this, "rebels" are very different than peaceful protesters.
| 27 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:19:59am |
Secular Atheist society dominated by Amish extremists.
Driving cars, shaving, or wearing makeup will be forbidden for no particularly good reason.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Jewisih extremists.
Calling your mother every other day will be mandatory for no particularly good reason.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Lutheran extremists.
Coffee will be subsidized, blah, blah, blah.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Mormon extremists.
Coffee will be forbidden, blah, blah, blah
Secular Atheist society dominated by Catholic extremists.
Government agents dressed in long black robes will come around and whack your knuckles with a ruler if they think there might be a good reason.
| 28 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:21:35am |
re: #27 EmmmieG
Secular Atheist society dominated by Amish extremists.
Driving cars, shaving, or wearing makeup will be forbidden for no particularly good reason.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Jewisih extremists.
Calling your mother every other day will be mandatory for no particularly good reason.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Lutheran extremists.
Coffee will be subsidized, blah, blah, blah.
Secular Atheist society dominated by Mormon extremists.Coffee will be forbidden, blah, blah, blah
Secular Atheist society dominated by Catholic extremists.
Government agents dressed in long black robes will come around and whack your knuckles with a ruler if they think there might be a good reason.
Now it's personal.
//
| 29 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:21:46am |
re: #16 SanFranciscoZionist
So am I, kind of. I'm trying not to get too bitter about the sillier aspects of it.
I think that's the right attitude. We've seen this all before. I can't wait until Breitbart uncovers a "downing street memo" claiming this was all planned in advance.
| 30 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:22:03am |
re: #26 Buck
My biggest concern is that they take over large sections of Libya, and Q'Daffy is no where to be found. THEN the so called rebels start enforcing sharia law, and slaughtering anyone they accuse of being pro-Q'Daffy.
Early on I felt I understood who the protesters in Egypt were. I have no idea who these rebels are.
I do know this, "rebels" are very different than peaceful protesters.
To be fair to the rebels, didn't the situation in Libya start out as a peaceful protest, which Q'Daffy responded to by starting to shoot up everyone who wasn't supporting him?
At that point you can't exactly fault them for not responding peacefully...
Am I wrong about any of the above?
| 31 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:22:20am |
re: #29 Killgore Trout
I think that's the right attitude. We've seen this all before. I can't wait until Breitbart uncovers a "downing street memo" claiming this was all planned in advance.
Right on cue.....next thread.
| 32 |
Jeff In Ohio Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:22:29am |
Obama made his case and anyone who is confused would seem disingenuous.
However though Libya is not Iraq, it's not Rwanda either. I'm uneasy about this military action. While I do believe it's saved lives in the short term, I think it's about Libyan oil needed by the English and French national politics. My proof is only what it's not - it's not Bahrain, it's not Syria, it's not the Ivory Coast.
| 34 |
simoom Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:24:25am |
re: #11 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure the rebels need to go much further, perhaps retaking Misurata if that's possible. If the remaining cities are going to involve civilian/tribal street by street warfare that could go a long way toward fracturing the country for a long time to come.
The rebels are now in control of most of the country's oil reserves, Ghaddafi has had his assets frozen around the world, there's sanctions, an arms embargo, a ban on air travel, Ghaddafi's airpower/airdefences are in shambles and his armor is easy pickings if it pokes out from the cities. I'd imagine the coalition wouldn't be too bothered by a brief stalemate followed by some sort of negotiated settlement involving the ouster of the Ghaddafi regime. There's been reports of interest from the Ghaddifi side in some sort of mediated peace negotiations and rebels are now in a much stronger bargaining position.
| 35 |
Jeff In Ohio Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:26:55am |
re: #30 jamesfirecat
To be fair to the rebels, didn't the situation in Libya start out as a peaceful protest, which Q'Daffy responded to by starting to shoot up everyone who wasn't supporting him?
At that point you can't exactly fault them for not responding peacefully...
Am I wrong about any of the above?
No. But are the rebles in eastern Libya have common cause with the people who were protesting in Tripoli?
[Link: nationaljournal.com...]
[Link: www.asiantribune.com...]
Dunno.
| 36 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:27:00am |
re: #21 EmmmieG
Secular atheist society dominated by Islamists. You will be forced to pray to Allah and wear a burka for no particular reason.
It will be a godless society in which you have to follow lots of religious rules.
| 37 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:29:47am |
re: #26 Buck
My biggest concern is that they take over large sections of Libya, and Q'Daffy is no where to be found. THEN the so called rebels start enforcing sharia law, and slaughtering anyone they accuse of being pro-Q'Daffy.
Early on I felt I understood who the protesters in Egypt were. I have no idea who these rebels are.
I do know this, "rebels" are very different than peaceful protesters.
I share your concern that what fills the power void in Libya may not be much of an improvement, but I'm curious as to why that doesn't concern you in Egypt as well.
I do understand that this is all-out civil war, whereas the Egyptian protests were largely nonviolent, however I think that reflects the pre-existing greater level of freedom and social order in Egypt, and the military's willingness to swap out one dictator for another. Gaddafi, OTOH, opened fire early on on those resisting his regime.
| 38 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:30:40am |
re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist
It will be a godless society in which you have to follow lots of religious rules.
Hmmm....
Atheist Islamist...
Varek Raith, now with twice the scariness!
| 39 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:30:44am |
re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist
It will be a godless society in which you have to follow lots of religious rules.
The ultimate in following nit-picky rules, but for no reward.
The cake is a lie!
| 40 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:32:16am |
re: #30 jamesfirecat
To be fair to the rebels, didn't the situation in Libya start out as a peaceful protest, which Q'Daffy responded to by starting to shoot up everyone who wasn't supporting him?
At that point you can't exactly fault them for not responding peacefully...
Am I wrong about any of the above?
It would seem to be important.
It isn't the way I saw it. I didn't see crowds of unarmed peaceful protesters in Libya. Now there is probably a good reason for that. Zero freedom of the press for one.
However, I have been watching this closely, and I never really saw or heard of thousands of unarmed civilians protesting... this started as a civil war. Near as I can see the UN jumped into protecting an armed "rebel" group, despite all the words about saving civilians... saying that there was a impending genocide, or civilian slaughter doesn't make it so.
Did I think Q'Daffy was starting to defeat the "rebels" who were clearly gunning for him, and using real guns? Yes. Did I want that to happen? No.
BUT Libya is looking very different than thousands of civilians peacefully protesting. Syria is looking more like Egypt did.
| 41 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:32:40am |
re: #27 EmmmieG
Secular Atheist society dominated by Mormon extremists.
Coffee will be forbidden, blah, blah, blah
I would fight to the death.
OTOH, I welcome our Lutheran overlords.
| 42 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:33:38am |
re: #41 SanFranciscoZionist
I would fight to the death.
OTOH, I welcome our Lutheran overlords.
Now were talking!
Would you like a torch or a pitchfork???
| 43 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:34:15am |
re: #26 Buck
My biggest concern is that they take over large sections of Libya, and Q'Daffy is no where to be found. THEN the so called rebels start enforcing sharia law, and slaughtering anyone they accuse of being pro-Q'Daffy.
Early on I felt I understood who the protesters in Egypt were. I have no idea who these rebels are.
I do know this, "rebels" are very different than peaceful protesters.
Congratulations. Did it feel good to break with Republicans over this and breathe the fresh air of rationality?
| 44 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:35:14am |
re: #42 Varek Raith
Now were talking!
Would you like a torch or a pitchfork???
Ahh, gimme a pitchfork.
| 45 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:37:44am |
re: #41 SanFranciscoZionist
I would fight to the death.
OTOH, I welcome our Lutheran overlords.
How would you look in a twinset, and can you bake a casserole?
| 46 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:37:50am |
re: #37 SanFranciscoZionist
I share your concern that what fills the power void in Libya may not be much of an improvement, but I'm curious as to why that doesn't concern you in Egypt as well.
I didn't see the protesters in Egypt holding english language signs or chanting death to American. It is my opinion that IF the MB was as organized and entrenched as some worry, they would have those picture signs with Ayatollah this, or Iman that...
I seriously do not think a new tyrant will be able to take hold in Egypt. It is my opinion that the people there will not trade one master for another...
I do understand that this is all-out civil war, whereas the Egyptian protests were largely nonviolent, however I think that reflects the pre-existing greater level of freedom and social order in Egypt, and the military's willingness to swap out one dictator for another. Gaddafi, OTOH, opened fire early on on those resisting his regime.
That is a good theory, I just don't see the back up for it. I don't think Syria has this "pre-existing greater level of freedom and social order", and the people there are still showing up and trying to stay non violent.
| 47 |
BishopX Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:38:31am |
re: #26 Buck
The prior to the no fly zone the rebels had envoys in Turkey conducting talks, they now have representative's in London during the Libya conference. They seem to be relatively well organized, and completely willing to deal with the western powers (good sign).
After the protesters took bengazi, the people who stepped up to run the city seemed to be drawn from 3 camps 1) professional groups 2)young, net literate activists 3)Islamists (including many Iraq and Afgan war vets, eastern Libya has been a hotbed of Islamist recruitment for decades). For a while the professional association seemed to be running things, but as the 'rebellion' aspect got bigger than the 'protest' aspect, more military type people got on board (ex-military and islamist). The rebels have also been helped by several high-level defections form the regime, including army comanders, ecomonic planners and the interior minister. The current prime minister of the rebels, Mahmoud Jibril is a Cairo educated economist who has spent the last 20 years working to attract foreign investment.
The rebel's have also released a manifesto, describing their vision of a "civil:democratic state which condemns extremism and terrorism while acknowledging religious tradition. Seems like a good start to me.
It's pretty clear that there are religious extremists involved with the rebels. What role they're playing, and their motivations for joining the rebels are still unclear.
| 48 |
dubi Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:41:05am |
This is what Sec Clinton said about Syria: My comments are in parenthesis.
Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were
the passage of a Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there
was a condemnation that was universal (so much for the US being the LEADER of the free world) but that is not going to happen because I don’t think
that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold? There is a different leader in Syria now (this is news to many Syrians.). Many
of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said
they believe he’s a reformer (huh?)
In my opinion, this is a disgrace.
| 49 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:41:48am |
re: #43 prononymous
Congratulations. Did it feel good to break with Republicans over this and breathe the fresh air of rationality?
You don't know me at all.
I am certainly NOT a blind Ideologue.
AND you fail to realize that sometimes when conservatives tweek Obama for not having a plan, or an exit strategy, or spending too much they are playing tit for tat.... What they are really saying is "look at the hypocrite".
| 50 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:41:54am |
re: #40 Buck
It would seem to be important.
It isn't the way I saw it. I didn't see crowds of unarmed peaceful protesters in Libya. Now there is probably a good reason for that. Zero freedom of the press for one.
However, I have been watching this closely, and I never really saw or heard of thousands of unarmed civilians protesting... this started as a civil war
Per Wikipedia, these were the early events:
The protests and confrontations began in earnest on 15 February 2011. On the evening of 15 February, between 500 and 600 protesters chanted slogans in front of the police headquarters in Benghazi. The protest was broken up violently by police, resulting in 38 injuries. The novelist Idris Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after giving an interview with Al Jazeera about the police reaction to protests. In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protesters in each town called for an end of the Gaddafi regime and set fire to police and security buildings. In Az Zintan, the protesters set up tents in the town centre. The protests continued the following day in Benghazi, Darnah and Al Bayda, leading to four deaths and three injuries. Hundreds gathered at Maydan al-Shajara in Benghazi, and authorities tried to disperse protesters with water cannons.
Obviously, peaceful protest is preferable, and in a moderate society like Egypt, far more possible. However, from the beginning, the Gaddafi regime went in breaking heads.
Are we really going to say that the people of Libya do not have the right to use force to free themselves from the man once described by a U.S. president as 'this mad dog of the Middle East'? Doesn't that mean that any dictator who's willing to open fire on protesters gets to stay in power in perpetuity?
| 51 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:42:29am |
re: #45 EmmmieG
How would you look in a twinset, and can you bake a casserole?
I like cardigans, and yes, I bake a mean casserole...it might work.
| 52 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:43:56am |
re: #46 Buck
I didn't see the protesters in Egypt holding english language signs or chanting death to American. It is my opinion that IF the MB was as organized and entrenched as some worry, they would have those picture signs with Ayatollah this, or Iman that...
I seriously do not think a new tyrant will be able to take hold in Egypt. It is my opinion that the people there will not trade one master for another...
That is a good theory, I just don't see the back up for it. I don't think Syria has this "pre-existing greater level of freedom and social order", and the people there are still showing up and trying to stay non violent.
The protesters in Egypt were definitely holding English-language signs, lots of them.
I suppose we're going to have to hope for the best in all locations.
| 53 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:45:01am |
re: #49 Buck
You don't know me at all.
I am certainly NOT a blind Ideologue.
AND you fail to realize that sometimes when conservatives tweek Obama for not having a plan, or an exit strategy, or spending too much they are playing tit for tat... What they are really saying is "look at the hypocrite".
In my eyes since they already committed those errors themselves they're not "playing tit for tat" or "look at the hypocrite" all they end up doing at the end of the day is producing a pathetic Tu quoque.
| 54 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:45:55am |
re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist
I like cardigans, and yes, I bake a mean casserole...it might work.
I'll talk with them. I think I can get you appointed Czar of Prayer Meetings Where Nothing Happens Whatsoever.
| 55 |
BishopX Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:46:24am |
re: #40 Buck
The peaceful protest phase in Libya was pretty quick, Feb 15-25, after which point the violent repression stopped the protests and turned this into a civil war.
| 56 |
Varek Raith Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:46:32am |
re: #54 EmmmieG
I'll talk with them. I think I can get you appointed Czar of Prayer Meetings Where Nothing Happens Whatsoever.
Wait can an eeevil overlord like myself do?
| 57 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:48:36am |
re: #49 Buck
You don't know me at all.
I am certainly NOT a blind Ideologue.
AND you fail to realize that sometimes when conservatives tweek Obama for not having a plan, or an exit strategy, or spending too much they are playing tit for tat... What they are really saying is "look at the hypocrite".
You are right. I don't know you. I can only infer your position from our interactions so far. I hadn't ever seen you condemn a republican politician over anything and I thought that claiming women's right to an abortion isn't under attack was rather blind to reality. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position, please feel free to clarify.
| 58 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:48:37am |
re: #56 Varek Raith
Wait can an eeevil overlord like myself do?
You're in charge of music. We'll need a national hymnal. It has to say nothing whatsoever for four verses.
I recommend using most state songs as a guide.
| 59 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:48:58am |
re: #49 Buck
You don't know me at all.
I am certainly NOT a blind Ideologue.
AND you fail to realize that sometimes when conservatives tweek Obama for not having a plan, or an exit strategy, or spending too much they are playing tit for tat... What they are really saying is "look at the hypocrite".
I was always taught that when one points a finger, they've got four more pointing back at them. You go on a length about this being us stepping into a civil war, but one of the arguments I heard frequently from conservatives during the run-up and early days of Iraq was that our deposing Saddam was because the Iraqi people simply couldn't do it themselves, that if they were to live "free," we had to do the fighting for them. That the war there was a "humanitarian" effort, because we were stopping Saddam from committing "genocide."
| 60 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:55:29am |
re: #53 jamesfirecat
In my eyes since they already committed those errors themselves they're not "playing tit for tat" or "look at the hypocrite" all they end up doing at the end of the day is producing a pathetic Tu quoque.
Tu quoque, and Magical Balance Fairies are, in my mind used way too much around here.
Constantly used to defend liberals, but it is forbidden to defend conservatives. Only the left can refer to Iraq without the "Tu quoque".
Sometimes it is relevant that a person has been inconsistent in their support for policies.
You call it pathetic, but I think it is a good point that the guy who when he courted the anti war left would NOT have supported the actions he currently engages in.
Guantanamo, cruise missiles in Pakistan, the surge in Afghanistan and now Libya. Those are some examples of being inconsistent on a very basic policy beliefs.
| 61 |
efuseakay Tue, Mar 29, 2011 11:55:55am |
It's not Iraq, for us... but it'll end up being worse for the "opposition" when we eventually give up on them.
| 62 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:01:07pm |
re: #60 Buck
Tu quoque, and Magical Balance Fairies are, in my mind used way too much around here.
Constantly used to defend liberals, but it is forbidden to defend conservatives. Only the left can refer to Iraq without the "Tu quoque".
Sometimes it is relevant that a person has been inconsistent in their support for policies.
You call it pathetic, but I think it is a good point that the guy who when he courted the anti war left would NOT have supported the actions he currently engages in.
Guantanamo, cruise missiles in Pakistan, the surge in Afghanistan and now Libya. Those are some examples of being inconsistent on a very basic policy beliefs.
At the very least I recall Obama tried to be consistent on Guantanamo and he failed due to the lack of support among the congress to vote for closing it and moving it elsewhere.
Also are you trying to say that there is a valid comparison to be drawn between the US's actions in Iraq and Lybia at the moment Buck?
| 63 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:01:50pm |
re: #59 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
I was always taught that when one points a finger, they've got four more pointing back at them. You go on a length about this being us stepping into a civil war, but one of the arguments I heard frequently from conservatives during the run-up and early days of Iraq was that our deposing Saddam was because the Iraqi people simply couldn't do it themselves, that if they were to live "free," we had to do the fighting for them. That the war there was a "humanitarian" effort, because we were stopping Saddam from committing "genocide."
Correct.... and I think that is what is really needed in Libya... and Syria, and Lebanon, and Qatar, and ...even the always magical kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I don't think THAT is possible, BUT I think that beating the snot out of the smallest guy in the region sends a signal to the other bullies that their days are numbered.
So what I am really asking is, what is the plan in Libya if it is NOT regime change and handing the reins over to the civilians? We know what it means if the 'rebels' lose, but do we really know what happens if they win? In Iraq we knew and could control what happened if we won...
| 64 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:09:10pm |
re: #62 jamesfirecat
At the very least I recall Obama tried to be consistent on Guantanamo and he failed due to the lack of support among the congress to vote for closing it and moving it elsewhere.
Also are you trying to say that there is a valid comparison to be drawn between the US's actions in Iraq and Lybia at the moment Buck?
Almost right. He failed because he found out that there was no good alternative in place. When he got into the big chair he discovered there was more to being simply anti-war.
AND no I think that there is LESS planning and LESS of a coalition in Libya. Obama didn't even try Sanctions....or Diplomacy...
| 65 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:09:11pm |
re: #63 Buck
Correct... and I think that is what is really needed in Libya... and Syria, and Lebanon, and Qatar, and ...even the always magical kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I don't think THAT is possible, BUT I think that beating the snot out of the smallest guy in the region sends a signal to the other bullies that their days are numbered.
So what I am really asking is, what is the plan in Libya if it is NOT regime change and handing the reins over to the civilians? We know what it means if the 'rebels' lose, but do we really know what happens if they win? In Iraq we knew and could control what happened if we won...
If we could control what happened in Iraq, then we did a very piss-poor job of it, considering the sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing that erupted after Saddam fell. We were so focused on slapping together a "stable" democracy in record time that we had neither the manpower nor the authority to stop the blood orgy that took place once the old regime was gone. If Iraq seems "stable" now, it's because thousands were tortured and murdered for simply having the wrong faith.
| 66 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:10:01pm |
re: #64 Buck
Almost right. He failed because he found out that there was no good alternative in place. When he got into the big chair he discovered there was more to being simply anti-war.
AND no I think that there is LESS planning and LESS of a coalition in Libya. Obama didn't even try Sanctions...or Diplomacy...
Wait... so when we have the UN and the Arab League both backing us up you feel we have LESS of a coalition going into Libya than we did into Iraq?
Buck you slay me.
| 67 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:11:40pm |
re: #64 Buck
Almost right. He failed because he found out that there was no good alternative in place. When he got into the big chair he discovered there was more to being simply anti-war.
Plenty of good alternatives, if your priority is abiding by the law rather than running a concentration camp.
AND no I think that there is LESS planning and LESS of a coalition in Libya. Obama didn't even try Sanctions...or Diplomacy...
Diplomacy? You have a dictator who is dropping high explosives and naval gunfire on his people's heads and you think he can be bargained with? What were we going to offer, not to put his ass on trial for war crimes?
| 68 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:12:48pm |
re: #33 treasured people
How would I do that?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
The 'create a page' button is on the right.
| 69 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:13:20pm |
re: #64 Buck
AND no I think that there is LESS planning and LESS of a coalition in Libya. Obama didn't even try Sanctions...or Diplomacy...
Of course you think that. It doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with reality.
| 70 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:14:50pm |
re: #65 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
If we could control what happened in Iraq, then we did a very piss-poor job of it, considering the sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing that erupted after Saddam fell. We were so focused on slapping together a "stable" democracy in record time that we had neither the manpower nor the authority to stop the blood orgy that took place once the old regime was gone. If Iraq seems "stable" now, it's because thousands were tortured and murdered for simply having the wrong faith.
Yes, and in ALMOST every shift to true democracy throughout history there is a blood soaked birth. Including the France, Russian and the USA.
AND number two, we don't yet know if that isn't going to happen in Libya as well. AS I said, what if these armed rebels win? Will they take their revenge on who they perceive as the the pro government side? You might still see the massacre you are hoping to avoid.
| 71 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:18:50pm |
re: #67 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
Plenty of good alternatives, if your priority is abiding by the law rather than running a concentration camp.
Gitmo is NOT a concentration camp in any stretch of the imagination.
It is legal (within the law) and no there are no easy alternatives. If there were Obama would have proposed it.
Diplomacy? You have a dictator who is dropping high explosives and naval gunfire on his people's heads and you think he can be bargained with? What were we going to offer, not to put his ass on trial for war crimes?
That is kinda my point. The Obama who ran for office would have insisted on it. He made it seem like he could negotiate with the worst dictators. The hope was that he could talk to our enemies....
| 72 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:20:08pm |
re: #66 jamesfirecat
Wait... so when we have the UN and the Arab League both backing us up you feel we have LESS of a coalition going into Libya than we did into Iraq?
Buck you slay me.
Yep, count the countries .... you can count right?
| 73 |
b_sharp Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:20:13pm |
re: #70 Buck
Yes, and in ALMOST every shift to true democracy throughout history there is a blood soaked birth. Including the France, Russian and the USA.
AND number two, we don't yet know if that isn't going to happen in Libya as well. AS I said, what if these armed rebels win? Will they take their revenge on who they perceive as the the pro government side? You might still see the massacre you are hoping to avoid.
Blood soaked is the natural state of human politics, democracy or not.
| 74 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:20:27pm |
re: #70 Buck
What's the point Buck? So what if the rebels do win? Could it be another one of those "blood soaked births" of democracy you mentioned?
| 75 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:21:37pm |
re: #63 Buck
We know what it means if the 'rebels' lose, but do we really know what happens if they win? In Iraq we knew and could control what happened if we won...
By remaining boots-on-ground for most of the next decade, yes, we could. We also didn't come in to Iraq to aid a rebellion. It was our entry that facilitated the assorted grassroots uprisings.
We're taking a gamble on this, to see if Gaddafi can be taken down.
| 76 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:22:05pm |
re: #64 Buck
Almost right. He failed because he found out that there was no good alternative in place. When he got into the big chair he discovered there was more to being simply anti-war.
AND no I think that there is LESS planning and LESS of a coalition in Libya. Obama didn't even try Sanctions...or Diplomacy...
I thought that was called 'appeasement'.
//Smack my mouth shut.
| 77 |
b_sharp Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:22:37pm |
re: #71 Buck
Gitmo is NOT a concentration camp in any stretch of the imagination.
Uh huh. And why was it important to make sure detainees were not incarcerated on American soil?
Woo, woo...
| 78 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:22:45pm |
re: #70 Buck
Yes, and in ALMOST every shift to true democracy throughout history there is a blood soaked birth. Including the France, Russian and the USA.
France's First Republic lasted a total of 12 years, dominated by the Great Terror, before Bonaparte's coronation. And if you consider the USSR a "true democracy," then I think you're in grave need a dictionary.
AND number two, we don't yet know if that isn't going to happen in Libya as well. AS I said, what if these armed rebels win? Will they take their revenge on who they perceive as the the pro government side? You might still see the massacre you are hoping to avoid.
Either way, the streets were going to run red with blood. Are you suggesting that it's only okay when we're the ones slitting throats?
| 79 |
Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:23:13pm |
WTF Buck? You took the exact opposite line of reasoning when discussing Iraq.
You have no principles dude.
| 80 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:23:17pm |
re: #71 Buck
That is kinda my point. The Obama who ran for office would have insisted on it. He made it seem like he could negotiate with the worst dictators. The hope was that he could talk to our enemies...
Buck what you're saying comes across to me like this.
"How dare Obama grow beyond being a simple flower power hippie into a man who realizes the cold realities of life demand that one in a position of great power must take the responsibility to every so often wield that power in defense of others! How dare he evolve as a person and grow to have a more mature understanding of the way the world works!"
I understand that sticking to one's guns is an admirable character trait but if Obama was holding a mistaken stance while running for office why are you upset that he's rectified it now that he's in power?
Conviction at the expense of blinding oneself to reality is no virtue.
| 81 |
b_sharp Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:25:31pm |
re: #72 Buck
Yep, count the countries ... you can count right?
The number of active countries is more important than global support?
Is that kind of like argument by dictionary, or just plain old argumentum ad populum?
| 82 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:25:41pm |
| 83 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:26:59pm |
re: #71 Buck
Gitmo is NOT a concentration camp in any stretch of the imagination.
It is legal (within the law) and no there are no easy alternatives. If there were Obama would have proposed it.
It is "legal" because we have declared it so and ignored any countries that have said otherwise. After all, who are they going to turn to, the UN? Meanwhile, there are dozens of men who can look forward to remaining incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives, because the previous administration's actions have made it all but impossible to try them in our own courts.
That is kinda my point. The Obama who ran for office would have insisted on it. He made it seem like he could negotiate with the worst dictators. The hope was that he could talk to our enemies...
It's funny, but I don't remember Libya ever being mentioned as a country we were willing to negotiate with. You have evidence to the contrary?
| 85 |
Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:28:35pm |
re: #81 b_sharp
Argumentum ad flippyfloppynospinalcolumn-um.
| 87 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:29:49pm |
re: #79 Fozzie Bear
WTF Buck? You took the exact opposite line of reasoning when discussing Iraq.
You have no principles dude.
Fozzie to earn the upding for this post I suggest it would probably be best for you to go and dig up some Buck's posts regarding Iraq and give us links.
Nothing like hard data after all....
| 88 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:32:22pm |
re: #83 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
It is "legal" because we have declared it so and ignored any countries that have said otherwise. After all, who are they going to turn to, the UN? Meanwhile, there are dozens of men who can look forward to remaining incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives, because the previous administration's actions have made it all but impossible to try them in our own courts.
It's funny, but I don't remember Libya ever being mentioned as a country we were willing to negotiate with. You have evidence to the contrary?
I am sorry you missed his "we should talk to our enemies, not just our friends stage", from my POV it was a hoot.
| 89 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:33:48pm |
re: #83 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
It's funny, but I don't remember Libya ever being mentioned as a country we were willing to negotiate with. You have evidence to the contrary?
To be fair: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html
Snip:
But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow.
| 90 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:34:53pm |
re: #88 Buck
I am sorry you missed his "we should talk to our enemies, not just our friends stage", from my POV it was a hoot.
So, which was he? A friend or an enemy?
| 91 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:36:35pm |
re: #90 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
So, which was he? A friend or an enemy?
Gaddafi managed to earn something of a protected spot for himself, even after the terrorism of the 80s, by lining himself up dramatically against al-Qaeda, having oil, and offering to voluntarily end weapons programs.
| 92 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:37:30pm |
re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist
Gaddafi managed to earn something of a protected spot for himself, even after the terrorism of the 80s, by lining himself up dramatically against al-Qaeda, having oil, and offering to voluntarily end weapons programs.
Ah, the House of Saud situation. Not too surprising.
| 93 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:37:32pm |
re: #79 Fozzie Bear
WTF Buck? You took the exact opposite line of reasoning when discussing Iraq.
You have no principles dude.
Nope. I supported a full on approach to Iraq, and I do in Libya as well.
I find the President saying two different things in the same speech, and each side only quotes the parts they like.
Not Regime change, BUT Q'Daffy has to step down. War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. This isn't a war, but it is. You must have a coalition, but only my coalition counts.
| 94 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:39:30pm |
re: #93 Buck
Nope. I supported a full on approach to Iraq, and I do in Libya as well.
I find the President saying two different things in the same speech, and each side only quotes the parts they like.
Not Regime change, BUT Q'Daffy has to step down. War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. This isn't a war, but it is. You must have a coalition, but only my coalition counts.
"War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. "
Buck if you find that statement contradictory or anything but god's own truth true... I feel very sorry for you.
| 95 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:39:53pm |
re: #92 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
Ah, the House of Saud situation. Not too surprising.
He's batshit crazy, but a good strategist.
| 96 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:44:46pm |
re: #94 jamesfirecat
"War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. "
Buck if you find that statement contradictory or anything but god's own truth true... I feel very sorry for you.
its the sticky widget of quantifying "sometimes" that gets tough. There are about 1,000,000 factors that go into whether or not "war is necessary," and they are different for each person. This is a reasonable and rational point of disagreement.
| 97 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:45:47pm |
re: #94 jamesfirecat
"War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. "
Buck if you find that statement contradictory or anything but god's own truth true... I feel very sorry for you.
RIGHT.... but not when a conservative said it...
YOU KNOW I was not quoting me... The big difference between Obama and Clinton, when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
Again James you should try and stop drinking the kool aid for one day. Sober up, and decide if Bush were doing exactly the same things, would you support him?
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
| 98 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:45:57pm |
re: #93 Buck
Nope. I supported a full on approach to Iraq, and I do in Libya as well.
I find the President saying two different things in the same speech, and each side only quotes the parts they like.
Not Regime change, BUT Q'Daffy has to step down. War is bad, but sometimes war is necessary. This isn't a war, but it is. You must have a coalition, but only my coalition counts.
So your criticism is basically "He's not a full-on warmonger!," is that it? He's not a Bush, charging into Libya with a "coalition of the willing" at his back, making hellbent for leather towards Tripoli in order to throw out Gaddafi and "give" the Libyan people democracy?
| 99 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:48:01pm |
re: #97 Buck
RIGHT... but not when a conservative said it...
YOU KNOW I was not quoting me... The big difference between Obama and Clinton, when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
Again James you should try and stop drinking the kool aid for one day. Sober up, and decide if Bush were doing exactly the same things, would you support him?
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
If Bush had UN support for a war and was going in to stop the killing of revolutionaries who had taken up arms against a despotic ruler I would have supported him.
Neither of those were true for Iraq though were they?
| 100 |
Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:48:45pm |
re: #97 Buck
RIGHT... but not when a conservative said it...
YOU KNOW I was not quoting me... The big difference between Obama and Clinton, when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
Again James you should try and stop drinking the kool aid for one day. Sober up, and decide if Bush were doing exactly the same things, would you support him?
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
That may be. But you, sir, sure as hell are not being consistent. You choose your principles on the basis of what they need to be in order to place yourself in opposition to whomever you perceive to be liberal.
This shtick might work in other fora, where your screeds aren't being read by the same group of people for years on end, but it sure as hell won't fly here.
| 101 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:49:39pm |
re: #88 Buck
I am sorry you missed his "we should talk to our enemies, not just our friends stage", from my POV it was a hoot.
You feel it is funny to talk to enemies? Why?
re: #97 Buck
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
Hard-headed "consistency" even when you are wrong isn't exactly an admirable trait, IMO.
| 102 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:49:52pm |
re: #97 Buck
RIGHT... but not when a conservative said it...
YOU KNOW I was not quoting me... The big difference between Obama and Clinton, when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
Again James you should try and stop drinking the kool aid for one day. Sober up, and decide if Bush were doing exactly the same things, would you support him?
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
I'm pro-Obama and anti war. I would rather not be in Libya right now, but then again, I'd rather not be in Iraq or Afghanistan either.
Afghanistan: We've failed to catch Osama, Taliban are back, and there is no clear endgame.
Iraq: there were no WMDs, we had to police a civil war on our own dime, and there is no clear endgame.
Libya: We've picked a side in a foreign civil war, which will have longterm consequences as a precedent (how and when do we choose to intervene in foreign civil wars? Why didn't we go into Darfur, Rwanda etc?). Again, no clear endgame.
All of this has been massively expensive at a time when we can't afford it. Not to mention that we are living in an age where the president can take unilateral military action, which is explicitly the opposite of the Constitutions intent.
That said, now that we're in those respective messes, I hope we "win," however the hell you define that.
| 103 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:50:26pm |
re: #100 Fozzie Bear
That may be. But you, sir, sure as hell are not being consistent. You choose your principles on the basis of what they need to be in order to place yourself in opposition to whomever you perceive to be liberal.
This shtick might work in other fora, where your screeds aren't being read by the same group of people for years on end, but it sure as hell won't fly here.
Once again Fozzie at the risk of repeating myself if you want to accuse Buck of talking out of both sides of his mouth, doing so while providing relevant links is only fair.
| 104 |
Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:52:17pm |
re: #102 EastSider
That said, now that we're in those respective messes, I hope we "win," however the hell you define that.
And this right here is the bit that worries me. We have failed to define measurable and achievable conditions which we define as "success" in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now, in Libya. This is the mistake we keep making over and over again.
| 105 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:52:29pm |
re: #98 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
So your criticism is basically "He's not a full-on warmonger!," is that it? He's not a Bush, charging into Libya with a "coalition of the willing" at his back, making hellbent for leather towards Tripoli in order to throw out Gaddafi and "give" the Libyan people democracy?
Ah, but you have this wrong. I am saying that he is all that and more. I said he is both. You only hear and see what you want to hear and see. For one audience he is "making hellbent for leather towards Tripoli in order to throw out Gaddafi" for the other... "this is not about regime change".
He says he is just making it easier for the Libyans to do this for themselves, but when any member of his administration is asked the question "who are the rebels"? No one is will to say simply "they are Libyans".
| 106 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:53:23pm |
re: #100 Fozzie Bear
That may be. But you, sir, sure as hell are not being consistent. You choose your principles on the basis of what they need to be in order to place yourself in opposition to whomever you perceive to be liberal.
This shtick might work in other fora, where your screeds aren't being read by the same group of people for years on end, but it sure as hell won't fly here.
Not true. Not true at all. You accuse me unfairly. I have done no such thing.
| 107 |
Political Atheist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:55:42pm |
But Obama promised no ground troops!
But the NATO chief may break that promise.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 108 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:55:55pm |
re: #106 Buck
Not true. Not true at all. You accuse me unfairly. I have done no such thing.
so what are your stances on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and why are you for/against how Bush/Obama has played each?
| 109 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 12:58:07pm |
re: #107 Rightwingconspirator
But Obama promised no ground troops!
But the NATO chief may break that promise.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
*deadpan* Colored me shocked.
| 110 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:00:28pm |
re: #102 EastSider
Afghanistan: We've failed to catch Osama, Taliban are back, and there is no clear endgame.Iraq: there were no WMDs, we had to police a civil war on our own dime, and there is no clear endgame.
In both cases there is a very clear end game. Nation building.
Training, not just military, but police, judges, civil servants and politicians. Teach them, and then let them govern.
This is different than any other time these areas have been conquered.
"America comes to liberate not to conquer, to restore freedom and end tyranny".
Sorry that you didn't get the memo.
Libya: We've picked a side in a foreign civil war, which will have longterm consequences as a precedent (how and when do we choose to intervene in foreign civil wars? Why didn't we go into Darfur, Rwanda etc?). Again, no clear endgame.
Now here I understand your confusion. Allow me to reassure you the endgame is the same as above, only the President is both denying it and saying it.
| 111 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:04:36pm |
re: #110 Buck
In both cases there is a very clear end game. Nation building.
Training, not just military, but police, judges, civil servants and politicians. Teach them, and then let them govern.
This is different than any other time these areas have been conquered.
"America comes to liberate not to conquer, to restore freedom and end tyranny".
Sorry that you didn't get the memo.
Now here I understand your confusion. Allow me to reassure you the endgame is the same as above, only the President is both denying it and saying it.
okay, if the goal is nation building (which none of these were sold as by any president, by the way, so Obama's denial is quite well mirrored by Bush on two fronts) when can we say Iraq and Afghanistan have successfully been "nation built"? And why are we paying for that? I would prefer to invest that money here, in our own infrastructure and (god forbid) healthcare.
| 112 |
Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:05:09pm |
re: #103 jamesfirecat
Once again Fozzie at the risk of repeating myself if you want to accuse Buck of talking out of both sides of his mouth, doing so while providing relevant links is only fair.
Have you ever tried finding a specific LGF poster's posts on a specific topic, years later? No thanks. My memory works just fine, and I am saying Buck is full of shit. I realize this is arguing by assertion, and honestly, that's fine with me, because I can't waste hours poring over old posts right now. There comes a point when you just have to say "ok, that right there is bullshit", even if you don't have the time to prove it with block quotations. It is what it is. If anybody else cares to dig into the archives, be my guest.
It's all good though, because Buck can just whip up some special software to block only my posts. He could just re-use the code he uses to block Obdicut, lol.
| 113 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:06:18pm |
re: #97 Buck
RIGHT... but not when a conservative said it...
YOU KNOW I was not quoting me... The big difference between Obama and Clinton, when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
That's incorrect. Obama supported the Afghanistan invasion and opposed Iraq. He never ran as a generically 'anti-war' candidate, nor did he say he would not deploy U.S. troops as he saw fit.
| 114 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:06:47pm |
re: #97 Buck
I can tell you Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Code Pink, George Soros are at least being consistent on this.
I have no idea what Soros is saying, but the other three are always consistent. Stupid, but consistent.
| 115 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:08:35pm |
re: #105 Buck
Ah, but you have this wrong. I am saying that he is all that and more. I said he is both. You only hear and see what you want to hear and see. For one audience he is "making hellbent for leather towards Tripoli in order to throw out Gaddafi" for the other... "this is not about regime change".
He says he is just making it easier for the Libyans to do this for themselves, but when any member of his administration is asked the question "who are the rebels"? No one is will to say simply "they are Libyans".
"They are Libyans" would somewhat sidestep the question, now wouldn't it? Gaddafi is also a Libyan.
Can you give me some quotes that you feel are inadequate responses to the question of who the rebels are?
| 116 |
Wozza Matter? Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:08:43pm |
I still think the push for an international coalition willing to do something came too late.
I don't believe the signals from the whitehouse were clear enough that they would partake in any action - were any action to occur, whereas David Cameron and Sarkozy were clear early on that something needed to be done.
The USA was vital in providing c&c outside of NATO - one of the big three members - Germany was on the sidelines and possibly willing to thwart intervention under that asupicis.
| 117 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:09:50pm |
re: #110 Buck
In both cases there is a very clear end game. Nation building.
Training, not just military, but police, judges, civil servants and politicians. Teach them, and then let them govern.
This is different than any other time these areas have been conquered.
"America comes to liberate not to conquer, to restore freedom and end tyranny".
Sorry that you didn't get the memo.
Now here I understand your confusion. Allow me to reassure you the endgame is the same as above, only the President is both denying it and saying it.
So the end-game in Libya is nation-building, "America comes to liberate not to conquer, to restore freedom and end tyranny", but your complaint is that Obama is not SAYING that he's going to do nation-building?
| 118 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:10:29pm |
re: #110 Buck
In both cases there is a very clear end game. Nation building.
Training, not just military, but police, judges, civil servants and politicians. Teach them, and then let them govern.
This is different than any other time these areas have been conquered.
"America comes to liberate not to conquer, to restore freedom and end tyranny".
Sorry that you didn't get the memo.
Now here I understand your confusion. Allow me to reassure you the endgame is the same as above, only the President is both denying it and saying it.
Also, I think I've figure out why this is peeving me so much.
Obama deploys troops to Libya, and your concern is not with whether that decision is correct, but the moral implications on Obama's character and what it says about him.
Maybe he's really a ratfink who changes his mind on a whim and lies out of both sides of his mouth towards nefarious purposes.
Maybe he's a bumbling idiot who shouldn't be in charge of a multi billion dollar war apparatus.
Maybe he's the most advanced statesman in decades and has made reasoned changes to previous positions based on new evidence, and history will prove that he has made good call after good call on foreign policy.
Regardless of the above three, the larger implication for discussion should be the actual military action, its justification and costs, precedents for future actions, alignment with past actions, and achievability of a rational end-game.
The fact that you're focusing all this on Obama, as opposed to anything, is petty.
| 119 |
Targetpractice Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:14:16pm |
re: #105 Buck
Ah, but you have this wrong. I am saying that he is all that and more. I said he is both. You only hear and see what you want to hear and see. For one audience he is "making hellbent for leather towards Tripoli in order to throw out Gaddafi" for the other... "this is not about regime change".
If it's about regime change, it's seeing it come by way of the rebels fighting on the ground, not our soldiers kicking in Gaddafi's door. Our efforts are meant to deny the man the means to commit genocide.
He says he is just making it easier for the Libyans to do this for themselves, but when any member of his administration is asked the question "who are the rebels"? No one is will to say simply "they are Libyans".
So are the soldiers they fight and the man who gives those soldiers their orders. Even the rebels themselves are not one single movement, but various groups coming together under the same flag in order to see Gaddafi removed from power. Which group do you wish to see us throw our lot in with?
| 120 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:15:35pm |
re: #108 EastSider
so what are your stances on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and why are you for/against how Bush/Obama has played each?
I Supported / Support all three. I am only having a problem with the way Libya is being run half hearted. I would have supported an action in Darfur, Rwanda, and North Korea just to name a few.
I am a war monger cowboy, just ask Fozzie Bear... he re: #113 SanFranciscoZionist
That's incorrect. Obama supported the Afghanistan invasion and opposed Iraq. He never ran as a generically 'anti-war' candidate, nor did he say he would not deploy U.S. troops as he saw fit.
You sure? Where was he in 2001?.... certainly not anywhere he could have voted to support the war. Easy to say you supported something that you were never asked to put to paper.
| 121 |
EastSider Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:18:16pm |
re: #120 Buck
I Supported / Support all three. I am only having a problem with the way Libya is being run half hearted. I would have supported an action in Darfur, Rwanda, and North Korea just to name a few.
Thanks. That's a perfectly reasonable position. I apologize for a going a bit over the top, and recognize you're having arguments with 10 different people right now, so I'll stop piling on. Good luck.
| 122 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:19:47pm |
re: #120 Buck
Yes. You really are a warmonger. It's really astonishing that you are so casual about the use of American soldier's lives.
Why aren't you urging that Canada intervene in Rwanda? Why is it your concern that the US do these things?
You sure? Where was he in 2001?... certainly not anywhere he could have voted to support the war. Easy to say you supported something that you were never asked to put to paper.
Heh. Pathetic. Your only excuse for being completely wrong is "Obama is lying."
| 123 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:20:14pm |
re: #120 Buck
I Supported / Support all three. I am only having a problem with the way Libya is being run half hearted. I would have supported an action in Darfur, Rwanda, and North Korea just to name a few.
I am a war monger cowboy, just ask Fozzie Bear... he re: #113 SanFranciscoZionist
You sure? Where was he in 2001?... certainly not anywhere he could have voted to support the war. Easy to say you supported something that you were never asked to put to paper.
Er, if we're going to play that game, he didn't join the U.S. Senate until 2005, so he was also 'not anywhere he could have voted to support the war' when Iraq began. Easy to say he didn't support something that he was never asked to put to paper.
| 124 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:20:31pm |
re: #115 SanFranciscoZionist
"They are Libyans" would somewhat sidestep the question, now wouldn't it? Gaddafi is also a Libyan.
Can you give me some quotes that you feel are inadequate responses to the question of who the rebels are?
Everyone says....they don't know who the rebels are. So I can't give you a quote.
BTW Gaddafi is not a Libyan on the rebel side.
| 125 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:22:22pm |
re: #123 SanFranciscoZionist
Er, if we're going to play that game, he didn't join the U.S. Senate until 2005, so he was also 'not anywhere he could have voted to support the war' when Iraq began. Easy to say he didn't support something that he was never asked to put to paper.
I didn't say that did I? As a reminder I said:
when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
You brought up the 2001 war, not me.
| 126 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:24:47pm |
re: #124 Buck
Everyone says...they don't know who the rebels are. So I can't give you a quote.
BTW Gaddafi is not a Libyan on the rebel side.
Yes. I understand that.
So, everyone says it, but you can't give me a quote of someone saying it?
| 127 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:24:54pm |
re: #122 Obdicut
Yes. You really are a warmonger. It's really astonishing that you are so casual about the use of American soldier's lives.
Why aren't you urging that Canada intervene in Rwanda? Why is it your concern that the US do these things?
BUT I did! I did big time! It is a huge reason why I no longer vote Liberal (that is the actual name of the party), and now vote Conservative (again the actual name of the political party).
Heh. Pathetic. Your only excuse for being completely wrong is "Obama is lying."
Ah, no I don't know where you get that from. I am not wrong.
| 128 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:25:01pm |
re: #125 Buck
Can you please name this vote that Obama made "not to support any war"?
| 129 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:25:55pm |
re: #125 Buck
I didn't say that did I? As a reminder I said:
You brought up the 2001 war, not me.
Buck, what do you want? You're insisting that Obama has presented himself as a uniformly anti-war politician. That's not true. He has, in fact, expressed his support for the invasion of Afghanistan. You were the one who decided that didn't count because he wasn't in the Senate then.
| 130 |
jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:26:33pm |
re: #125 Buck
I didn't say that did I? As a reminder I said:
You brought up the 2001 war, not me.
What would Obama need to do to prove he supports/supported the Afghanistan war to you Buck?
| 131 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:30:11pm |
Obama, August 1, 2007:
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
...
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
| 132 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:31:20pm |
re: #127 Buck
So the Conservative party in Canada wants to invade Rwanda?
That's weird, given that they just voted to allow them into the Commonwealth.
Why are you under the impression that the Conservative Party wants to do nation-building in Rwanda, given that?
| 133 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:33:42pm |
Barack Obama, 2002:
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
| 134 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:35:01pm |
Oh, and perhaps relevent to today's issues, from the 2002 speech:
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Hey! He beats out Condi by three years!!!
| 135 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:35:31pm |
I have to go pick up my daughter.
Bye. I wish I could debate more.
| 136 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:37:04pm |
re: #133 SanFranciscoZionist
Barack Obama, 2002:
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
Ya, not a good speech to quote... isn't that the one that said his grandpa as part of Pattons army liberated a concentration camp that was actually liberated by the Russians?
But another example of AFTER the fact support.
| 137 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:40:05pm |
re: #136 Buck
Red herring Buck. That has nothing to do with his support or rejection of warfare as a tool of state.
| 138 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:44:05pm |
re: #136 Buck
Ya, not a good speech to quote... isn't that the one that said his grandpa as part of Pattons army liberated a concentration camp that was actually liberated by the Russians?
But another example of AFTER the fact support.
Uh, no. The complete text is here., if you would like to check. The statement you're referring to was about his uncle, and was made at a different time. Nice try, though.
So, basically, you've now stated that Barack Obama was opposed to all wars, unless you see a quote from him supporting one before it starts? Do you understand that that sounds sort of stupid?
Before I go back and start hunting for the transcripts of the Illinois State Senate, how about you come up with some evidence for your idiotic claim that Obama ever said he was opposed to war on general principals. Otherwise, I'm afraid, this is total crap.
| 139 |
moderatelyradicalliberal Tue, Mar 29, 2011 1:56:00pm |
re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist
Uh, no. The complete text is here., if you would like to check. The statement you're referring to was about his uncle, and was made at a different time. Nice try, though.
So, basically, you've now stated that Barack Obama was opposed to all wars, unless you see a quote from him supporting one before it starts? Do you understand that that sounds sort of stupid?
Before I go back and start hunting for the transcripts of the Illinois State Senate, how about you come up with some evidence for your idiotic claim that Obama ever said he was opposed to war on general principals. Otherwise, I'm afraid, this is total crap.
Obama said he was opposed to stupid wars, not all wars. The man is not a pacifist and never said he was. Also too, his great-uncle did participate in liberating a concentration camp, Obama just said the wrong one. It was Buchenwald.
| 140 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 2:02:03pm |
On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
(Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005)
This is the guy who has Buck's support.
| 141 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 4:29:02pm |
re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist
Uh, no. The complete text is here., if you would like to check. The statement you're referring to was about his uncle, and was made at a different time. Nice try, though.
I asked it in the form of a question. it wasn't a try.... it sounded like that speech.
So, basically, you've now stated that Barack Obama was opposed to all wars, unless you see a quote from him supporting one before it starts? Do you understand that that sounds sort of stupid?
Again, I didn't say that did I? Again I said:
(When discussing the big difference between Obama and Hillary during the nomination run) when it came right down to it was his anti war stance. He voted, right down the line NOT to support any war. "I was against it even before I was against it".
Here you go again. Latching on the most insignificant part of my argument. IF you don't get that Obama ran as the anti war (or peace President) then you really missed a big part of the election. It started during the nomination run. He successfully differentiated himself from Hillary Clinton by pointing out that he was against the war in Iraq, and she wasn't. It was a cheap shot, but it really mobilized the anti war far left. I remember that time every well.
Now I never said that he said he opposed all wars. That would be silly. I have stated before that I think he plays with the words to give both impressions.
For example: "I don't oppose all wars." Obama said, "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income."
Well.... who is in favor of dumb wars? No one. Who is in favor of rash wars (what is a rash war?)? No one. And wag the dog? really? People could easily say that is what he is doing right now. Ya we are all against wag the dog.
I guess what I am saying is that Obama better hope that straw men don't unionize. He uses them so much that he would be broke fast.
| 142 |
Buck Tue, Mar 29, 2011 4:43:57pm |
re: #140 Obdicut
This is the guy who has Buck's support.
You are sooooo off topic I can't stand it. I can't even connect the dots from what I am talking about to what you are trying to stick to me.
Just so you know you have pulled out a sentence that does NOT reflect what Stephen Harper said and did during the run up for the Iraq war. The first hint is the date of the quote. The war was basically over, and Canada had just committed to a large participation in Afghanistan. He was in a minority parliamentary position, and knew what he could and couldn't do. So what you have him saying is that he is (after the fact, and with hindsight) disappointed with "the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction." Well who isn't?
What did Harper say during the run up to the war two years earlier?
Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need.
I want you to read that last sentence again... say it out loud...
That is the guy I support.
| 143 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 29, 2011 4:45:28pm |
Well... who is in favor of dumb wars? No one.
You, for one. IMO.
| 144 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 5:36:46pm |
re: #142 Buck
I want you to read that last sentence again... say it out loud...
That is the guy I support.
You don't get to choose for him to be that guy, and not the one voting for Rwanda's acceptance into the Commonwealth, and for him being opposed to aiding the US in Iraq with troops.
It is interesting that you're basically calling him a liar and saying that you support him.
| 145 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 5:37:12pm |
re: #142 Buck
I love how you just skip over the fact that he says he wouldn't commit Canadian troops.
| 146 |
unrememberable Tue, Mar 29, 2011 6:41:32pm |
re: #132 Obdicut
So the Conservative party in Canada wants to invade Rwanda?
That's weird, given that they just voted to allow them into the Commonwealth.
When Buck said that he was in favor of intervention in Rwanda, among other countries, I took it for granted that he was referring to 1994, while the genocide was taking place, not 2011, 17 years later.
| 147 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 7:36:50pm |
re: #146 unrememberable
Rwanda is still not a free country, by any means.
| 148 |
unrememberable Tue, Mar 29, 2011 8:06:52pm |
re: #147 Obdicut
Rwanda is still not a free country, by any means.
Let's recap, because I don't follow you:
1. Buck cited Rwanda, out of all of the countries of the world, as one where he would support invasion.
2. You questioned whether there was Conservative support of an invasion of Rwanda, "given that they just voted to allow them into the Commonwealth".
3. I pointed out that Buck was probably referring to a 2004 invasion, not a 2011 invasion.
4. You then write that Rwanda is still not a free country.
I'm trying to figure out how your point #4 fits into the discussion.
I took it for granted that Buck cited a Rwanda invasion because he felt that there was something singular about Rwanda that would justify intervention, and I'm coming up with the massacre of 800,000+ people in a span of weeks, an event that occurred in 1994. I'm therefore concluding that Buck intended a 1994 invasion of Rwanda to stop that atrocity.
You seem to disagree. Can you please clarify why you would think that Buck would be more likely to be referring to an invasion 17 years after a genocide, because Rwanda "is still not a free country", than an invasion to stop a genocide as it was occurring?
If that's not what you are saying, then can you please clarify what you are saying?
| 149 |
unrememberable Tue, Mar 29, 2011 8:11:42pm |
re: #148 unrememberable
Correction: in my previous post, where I have 2004, I should have written 1994.
| 150 |
Obdicut Tue, Mar 29, 2011 8:35:27pm |
re: #148 unrememberable
I'm trying to figure out how your point #4 fits into the discussion.
I'm not sure why it's confusing. Probably because you don't know Buch.
I took it for granted that Buck cited a Rwanda invasion because he felt that there was something singular about Rwanda that would justify intervention
Yeah. Buck also supports a war by Israel, backed by the US and any other nation that will join, against every other nation in the Middle East.
Anyway, whatever time period you choose: At no point did the Conservatives in Canada, or their previous incarnations, favor intervention in Rwanda, either before, during or after the genocide. So the point at which you examine the claim doesn't matter.
| 151 |
unrememberable Tue, Mar 29, 2011 8:58:55pm |
re: #150 Obdicut
I appreciate the clarification. If Buck is stating that he would have favored a 1994 Rwanda intervention, and Canada's conservative party at the time did not, then perhaps Buck would have been among the party's critics on that policy.
Anyway, my understanding is that no nation on earth lifted a finger to mitigate the genocide, so I'm not sure why the previous incarnation of the political party that Buck currently supports should be singled out for criticism on the Rwanda enormity.
And please note that I am unfamiliar with any of Buck's positions on other matters. My remarks are restricted to the points raised in this thread on Rwanda.
| 152 |
Obdicut Wed, Mar 30, 2011 3:19:31am |
re: #151 unrememberable
I appreciate the clarification. If Buck is stating that he would have favored a 1994 Rwanda intervention, and Canada's conservative party at the time did not, then perhaps Buck would have been among the party's critics on that policy.
It still makes his claim that his favoring an invasion there-- and elsewhere-- is why he switched his support to them-- nonsensical.
, so I'm not sure why the previous incarnation of the political party that Buck currently supports should be singled out for criticism on the Rwanda enormity.
Did you no follow the conversation?
I asked why Buck didn't urge that Canada intervene in Rwanada or elsewhere. His response was:
BUT I did! I did big time! It is a huge reason why I no longer vote Liberal (that is the actual name of the party), and now vote Conservative (again the actual name of the political party).
Since the conservative party of Canada did not favor intervening in Rwanda, this doesn't make a lick of sense. It makes even less sense since Harper now says that he wouldn't commit any troops to Iraq.
| 153 |
unrememberable Wed, Mar 30, 2011 3:28:50am |
re: #152 Obdicut
Again, thanks for the clarification.
Since the conservative party of Canada did not favor intervening in Rwanda, this doesn't make a lick of sense. It makes even less sense since Harper now says that he wouldn't commit any troops to Iraq.
1. Which party specifically are you referring to?
2. Can you cite a reference that they didn't favor Rwanda intervention?
Buck, can you weigh in on this?
| 154 |
unrememberable Wed, Mar 30, 2011 3:42:21am |
Another thought: perhaps the present conservative party of Canada has a foreign policy different from that of the conservative parties extant during 1994.
Buck cited the Liberal position of Rwanda as one reason for leaving that party. Perhaps the position of the conservative parties at the time was no different, but in the newer conservative party, formed in 2003, Buck eventually found a party with a foreign policy he could agree with.
| 155 |
Obdicut Wed, Mar 30, 2011 3:56:14am |
re: #153 unrememberable
1. Which party specifically are you referring to?
The two parties that combined to become the Conservative party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Reform Party.
2. Can you cite a reference that they didn't favor Rwanda intervention?
[Link: www.thestar.com...]
In addition, they were in control of the government up until November of 1993, and they didn't vote to authorize intervention in Rwanda. Therefore, rather obviously, they didn't favor Rwandan intervention.
Huh, and look this, only the Conservative party fought against a resolution declaring that what had happened in Bosnia was genocide against Bosniaks.
[Link: www.instituteforgenocide.ca...]
Awesome.
Another thought: perhaps the present conservative party of Canada has a foreign policy different from that of the conservative parties extant during 1994.
That's why I quoted Harper from 2005 saying
On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country.
Furthermore, at no point has Harper supported Canadian invasion and intervention in the Sudan, where an ongoing genocide is occurring.
| 156 |
Buck Wed, Mar 30, 2011 9:52:53am |
OK, once again the sniper Obdicut likes to find something way off topic to debate, instead of the topic set in front of him
Basically it is a form of strawman.... unable to even remember what the heck I was talking about, he tries to find something else to discuss. Usually bringing up something from my history that he can distort. Like he does with my opinion that once in a war, a country should do everything they can to defeat the enemy until they surrender. That doing anything else (decades of ceasefires for example) only prolongs the war, and ultimately is greater harm. NOT "a war by Israel, backed by the US and any other nation that will join, against every other nation in the Middle East". A "war by Israel" is code for Israel starts a war. I simply suggest that Israel should not stop fighting the war that is brought to them, until the other side surrenders.
Now to Rwanda, which is way off topic. Roméo Antonius Dallaire is Canadian, and therefore Canada had a special responsibility in Rwanda 1994. In 1994 Jean Chretien was Prime Minister and had a large parliamentary majority. Obdicut points out that the PC party was in power in 1993. What that has to do with 1994, he does not explain. BUT most importantly Obdicut does not imagine that the Party and it's policies might have shifted in the past 20 years. The Progressive Conservative party was not at all like it is today. It was more progressive than conservative. Stephen Harper was not the leader of the PC party in 1994. I did not change my vote in 1994. However, as I stated the events of 1994 did play a large role in how I vote today.
There are other factors as well. Voting in the UN for example. Where the Liberal party has almost always abstained when voting on matter related to Israel, the Conservatives, under Harper are voting to support Israel.
What would Harper have done in 1994 regarding Rwanda? No one can know for sure, BUT based on his actions and speeches in the recent past, I think he would have acted to support Roméo Antonius Dallaire, and not ignore him.
| 157 |
Buck Wed, Mar 30, 2011 9:58:15am |
Again, I just want to say that it is MY opinion, and MY vote. If we were having a discussion in someones living room and a person disagreed with my opinion they would not start challenging me, calling me a liar. On the subject at hand I have stated my opinion. Clearly and concisely. I support freeing the people of Libya from the tyrant Gadaffi. I support hitting him hard while he is weak and handing the reins of power only to the people of Libya. With a true democracy in place (secret ballot, multi party elections), freedom of the press, rule of law, freedom of religion, and equal right for every citizen.
I was simply saying that without "boots on the ground" it is hard to know for sure who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
It looks to me that in Libya, some people are mistaking 'rebels' for peaceful demonstrators. Taking sides with strange armed men, without knowing their motives means a huge gamble. You can only trust certain groups to have the discipline needed in a conflict like this.
| 158 |
Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:17:22am |
re: #157 Buck
I was simply saying that without "boots on the ground" it is hard to know for sure who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
It looks to me that in Libya, some people are mistaking 'rebels' for peaceful demonstrators. Taking sides with strange armed men, without knowing their motives means a huge gamble. You can only trust certain groups to have the discipline needed in a conflict like this.
Boots on the ground doesn't mean scientists in boots carrying mind-probes. If the rebels are lying about their intent then they could just as easily do it to soldiers' faces.
The thing is, they aren't asking for ground forces at the moment. If we did it anyway some of them would feel like it was an excuse to occupy and it could radicalize groups that otherwise would be allies in the current situation.
| 159 |
Obdicut Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:04:06pm |
re: #156 Buck
Now to Rwanda, which is way off topic. Roméo Antonius Dallaire is Canadian, and therefore Canada had a special responsibility in Rwanda 1994. In 1994 Jean Chretien was Prime Minister and had a large parliamentary majority. Obdicut points out that the PC party was in power in 1993. What that has to do with 1994, he does not explain.
It has to do with 1992. When the progressive conservatives were presented with evidence that a genocide was brewing, and did nothing. nothing.
What would Harper have done in 1994 regarding Rwanda? No one can know for sure, BUT based on his actions and speeches in the recent past, I think he would have acted to support Roméo Antonius Dallaire, and not ignore him.
Bullshit. If that's the case, why hasn't he taken Canada into the Sudan to intervene in the genocide there?
How do you manage to ignore Harper's statements that he would not commit troops to Iraq? How on earth do manage to do that?
I do notice that Harper spent a lot of time and effort attempting to get gay marriage repealed.
So Harper, actually intervening abroad to stop genocide? Not so much. Harper, at home, trying to prevent gay marriage? Yep.
That's who you support.
| 160 |
shreck Wed, Mar 30, 2011 4:06:13pm |
22 MEU just left, in a hurry I believe, to the med. 2200 Marines. Just in case anyone needs 4400 boots on the ground. Of course this will be a humanitarian mission, right up to the time the shooting starts.
This endeavor is unwise and no good will come of it.
| 161 |
Buck Wed, Mar 30, 2011 4:55:24pm |
re: #159 Obdicut
It has to do with 1992. When the progressive conservatives were presented with evidence that a genocide was brewing, and did nothing. nothing.
You are just an ignorant jackass. I explained that the Progressive Conservative Party is not the same as today's Conservative Party.
But also you assume they did nothing, when in fact they sent in what are called "a Peace Keeping Force" which was popular at the time.
Bullshit. If that's the case, why hasn't he taken Canada into the Sudan to intervene in the genocide there?
Bullshit on you, Sudan is very different that Rwanda was. Canada had armed forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, and on orders from Canada had to stand by and simply watch.
Harper does not have a force on the ground in the Sudan.
How do you manage to ignore Harper's statements that he would not commit troops to Iraq? How on earth do manage to do that?
I actually answered that in my #142.
I do notice that Harper spent a lot of time and effort attempting to get gay marriage repealed.
False. In fact there is more same sex marriage in Canada during the Harper government time, AND it came about here before the USA.
| 162 |
Buck Wed, Mar 30, 2011 5:06:38pm |
re: #159 Obdicut
I do notice that Harper spent a lot of time and effort attempting to get gay marriage repealed.
So Harper, actually intervening abroad to stop genocide? Not so much. Harper, at home, trying to prevent gay marriage? Yep.
That's who you support.
I want to address this separately.
You actually are, once again, simply making up shit AGAIN.
In 2006 Harper had a "Free Vote" where members of parliament did not have to vote the party line. If the motion were to pass, the government would draft a bill to restore the "traditional" definition of marriage.
It was a very democratic idea. Very simple, and very fair to both sides of the debate.
When the motion did NOT pass Harper told reporters that he "[didn't] see reopening this question in the future". That was in 2006, and the issue has NOT been touched in Parliment since.
So the line that you "notice that Harper spent a lot of time and effort attempting to get gay marriage repealed." is just a lie.
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
