›

Libya: Portrait of a Failure

sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
edited March 2011 in Strut Central
Get cracking Motown, or are you just the craven hypocrite I always knew you were?
«134567

  Comments

  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    why do you hate America?
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Ah contraire mon frere. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
  • PATXPATX 2,820 Posts
    LOL, well played guys.

    Bob "Meet me in the DU Lounge" Desperado.... where art thy truth bombs?

    Nothing has failed yet. But when all you got is a sack of Tomahawks, every problem starts to look like a concrete bunker.

    If it's a cause worth dying for, boots on the ground is the only way to go. You would get volunteers. That's how it went down before Vietnam. UNPROFOR with mechanized infantry and no fly zone enforced through jamming not shock and awe. It would cost a fraction of the price in cash terms, politically, that capital has been spent 4x over since Clinton.

    Rebels have already probably committed plenty of war crimes. They have enough oil and cash to put up a good fight against Gaddafi. Let them do it. But then oil price spike in Europe would put Cameron and Sarkozy in the firing line. Not live rounds, luckily. When you look back at our time in history, the "coalition's" adventures in the Oil Lands will very much be seen as a battle for resources. Nothing to do with Bush or "My Dude". Opening markets with aircraft carriers, it is called. Russia, China, India, Latin America are happy to sit by and watch the Centurians charge around their dwindling empire, while they themselves invest a much larger % of their GDP into alternative energy. Double winning.

    This one is for Rock - should make your heart beat faster, but maybe Malc's inside game was too weak for you? Or maybe he had ideas above his station?


    Iraq Speech
    by Barack Obama
    Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.


    Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

    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 saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

    I don???t oppose all wars.

    After September 11th, 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 a tragedy from happening again.

    I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    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 ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.

    So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

    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.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

    Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

    The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    I prefer to think of our current Libya involvement as an '80's throwback' of sorts - yet another opportunity for Obama drape himself in Reagan's mantle - you of all people should applaud
  • PATXPATX 2,820 Posts
    Where are Soulstrut's leading essayists on this? What is holding you back LaserWu? It sure ain't spell check.
  • Options
    Unknown
    SportCasual said:
    LOL, well played guys.

    Bob "Meet me in the DU Lounge" Desperado.... where art thy truth bombs?

    Nothing has failed yet. But when all you got is a sack of Tomahawks, every problem starts to look like a concrete bunker.

    If it's a cause worth dying for, boots on the ground is the only way to go. You would get volunteers. That's how it went down before Vietnam. UNPROFOR with mechanized infantry and no fly zone enforced through jamming not shock and awe. It would cost a fraction of the price in cash terms, politically, that capital has been spent 4x over since Clinton.

    Rebels have already probably committed plenty of war crimes. They have enough oil and cash to put up a good fight against Gaddafi. Let them do it.

    I don't know where anyone got the notion that I'm a pacifist. I'm not.

    I hope the rebels succeed and this limited involvement seems like it might work. We'll see. I'm very much against "boots on the ground" here.

    I'm more disturbed by the expansion of the war in Afghanistan.
  • PATXPATX 2,820 Posts
    BobDesperado said:


    I don't know where anyone got the notion that I'm a pacifist. I'm not.

    I hope the rebels succeed and this limited involvement seems like it might work. We'll see. I'm very much against "boots on the ground" here.

    I'm more disturbed by the expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

    I think the notion is more that you are a hypocrite. A "ditto monkey" if you will.

    The "liberals" on this "left-leaning" (LOLbarf) board need to change affiliation to the Reality Party. It's quite liberating actually. I'm not even wearing any underwear right now.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    The US is now at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya.

    Good? Bad?
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    The first few opening notes remind me of The Shangri-Las.


  • Options
    Unknown
    SportCasual said:
    BobDesperado said:


    I don't know where anyone got the notion that I'm a pacifist. I'm not.

    I hope the rebels succeed and this limited involvement seems like it might work. We'll see. I'm very much against "boots on the ground" here.

    I'm more disturbed by the expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

    I think the notion is more that you are a hypocrite. A "ditto monkey" if you will.

    That's your notion. My notion is that you're an idiot.

    My "hypocrisy" is all in your head.
  • DuderonomyDuderonomy Haut de la Garenne 7,789 Posts
  • JamalJamal 410 Posts
    LaserWolf said:
    The US is now at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya.

    Good? Bad?

    good???????

    BAD!

  • FrankFrank 2,373 Posts
    SportCasual said:


    If it's a cause worth dying for, boots on the ground is the only way to go. You would get volunteers.

    I guess that currently not too many people want these sorts of boots on a ground anywhere near them.





  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Exit Question: How long until John Kerry is against this war which he is currently for?
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-top-ten-rea.html

    The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama

    10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

    9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

    8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.

    7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

    6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

    5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

    4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

    3. Two words: President Palin.

    2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

    1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.

    Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.
  • discos_almadiscos_alma discos_alma 2,164 Posts
    Saba-doodoo-da, Portrait of a Thread Failure.
  • Options
    Unknown
    "The opposition hopes that international forces will wrap up their campaign "as soon as possible," so that protesters can return safely into the streets to demand ??? peacefully ??? for change in the government, Zeidan said.

    Earlier Monday, Henri Guaino, a top adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said allied military intervention likely to last "a while," and that the U.N.-mandated goal of protecting civilians is not "totally achieved."

    France was the first country to give diplomatic recognition to Libya's opposition and Sarkozy pushed hard for Arab world support for the no-fly zone authorized by the Security Council. While not called for under the U.N. resolution, Gaddafi's ouster is a key aim of France and the rebels.

    "Gaddafi must disappear. He should leave as soon as possible," Zeidan said. "We would like to establish a new state on the basis of democracy ... we do not want an Islamist government."

    He said his movement's long-term goal is to improve education, health care and bring back 50,000 educated Libyans living in the United States and Europe to Libya to restore the country's intellectual fabric and economy."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/rebels-want-gaddafi-ousted-not-dead_n_838482.html
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Charlie Sheen has certainly not been making a positive impression on Americans himself.
    Two-thirds of them have a negative opinion of Sheen, and that cuts across party lines.
    But while Sheen would go down in flames in humorous, hypothetical White House
    matchups with either President Obama or Sarah Palin, Americans are evidently at least a
    little more willing to cast a ballot for Sheen against Palin than against the president.

    84% of Republicans would go with Palin, and the same proportion of Democrats would
    side with Obama.

    But while independents mirror the overall electorate in choosing
    Obama over Sheen by a 57-22 margin, they actually would prefer the actor to the exgovernor,
    41-36. That is how low Palin???s public image has fallen.

    In yesterday???s release, 86% of Democrats viewed Palin negatively,
    versus only 64% who see Sheen that way.
    Similarly, 86% of Republicans disapprove of Obama???s job performance,
    while 73% see Sheen unfavorably.

    Naturally, then, Democrats would still prefer Sheen to Palin (44-24)
    and Republicans Sheen to Obama (37-28).
    Apparently Democrats are even more intense in their hatred of Palin than Republicans toward
    Obama. Thus, Palin ???only??? beats Sheen, 49-29, but the president does, 57-24.

    1) If the 2012 Presidential election were today and the candidates were Sarah Palin v Charlie Sheen who would you vote for?

    2) It the 2012 Presidential election were today and the candidates were Obama v Charlie Sheen who would you vote for?
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    1) If the 2012 Presidential election were today and the candidates were Kathy Griffin v the rotting corpse of Jesse Helms who would you vote for?

    2) It the 2012 Presidential election were today and the candidates were Gilbert Gottfried v a Horseshoe Crab who would you vote for?

  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    Frank said:
    SportCasual said:


    If it's a cause worth dying for, boots on the ground is the only way to go. You would get volunteers.

    I guess that currently not too many people want these sorts of boots on a ground anywhere near them.






    ^ This blood is truly on Obama's hands. There is no other conclusion to come to. The Der Spiegel photos are worse than Abu Ghraib, as they represent wartime atrocities involving the murder and dismemberment of innocent and unarmed civilians. What a colossial failure our President has turned out to be.
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    By the way, in case you're keeping score on proper whistleblowing facilitators: Wikileaks < Der Spiegel
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    2x post.
  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    I'm shocked, shocked
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    It's war, man; crazy is the norm.
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    If people have come to expect the murder and dismemberment of innocent and unarmed civilians, then I'm really not sure what else to say.
  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    there's no moral clarity here

    we really should just get the fuck out there

    let them kill each other instead

    that way our hands are clean
  • kitchenknightkitchenknight 4,922 Posts
    "only you can prevent forests."
    -Dispatches
    Michael Herr

    Agree with the 'war is crazies.' Seriously, Obama signed off on that? No.
  • Options
    Unknown
    luck said:
    ^ This blood is truly on Obama's hands. There is no other conclusion to come to. The Der Spiegel photos are worse that Abu Ghraib, as they represent wartime atrocities involving the murder and dismemberment of innocent and unarmed civilians. What a colossial failure our President has turned out to be.

    There are five soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes in connection with these photos.

    Who do you suppose is prosecuting them? Elves?

    I'm against the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, but holding Obama responsible for murders committed by some rogue scumbags only makes sense if you can show a pattern of ignoring or condoning this kind of thing. That was the case with Abu Ghraib, which only came to light because of leaked photos. Here the photos are part of a prosecution that's already underway.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/51475985-68/der-morlock-spiegel-photos.html.csp
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    The hunting of innocent civilians for sport may be news to those people who only look at the pictures*.
    Or perhaps, it gets more coverage here because we are closer Ft Lewis.

    The prosecution of the soldiers involved has been news for months and their crimes have been detailed in prose as gruesome (or more) as the photos.

    To anyone who thinks, this just happens in wars, I want to say "Fuck You!".
    Nice way to support our troops. Tell them you think they are cold blood murders who do it for sport. Fuck you.

    * I know that's not you Luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.