home

Libya

Statues are being pulled down in Tripoli:

Rebels surged into the Libyan capital Sunday night, meeting little resistance from troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and setting off raucous street celebrations by residents hailing the end of his 42 years in power.

Congratulations to the Libyan people. Good luck with the future of your country.

< Another Reason Not To Care Who Is Elected President? | New Investigative Report on FBI's Use of Terror Informants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Theory wrong (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 06:28:48 AM EST
    This was the violent overthrow of a tyrant led by the people and not outside forces.

    Celebration is earned on many fronts.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    There was an alliance of NATO, the NTC, and various other anti-regime militias on the fringe. Both NATO and NTC had to be involved to ensure victory, both had to take up the mantle of leadership in this "civil war with international characteristics". To pretend otherwise is to push transparent propaganda that serves absolutely no purpose. It's diplomatic doublespeak that can safely be left to the American ambassadors to China and Russia.

    Parent
    This sounds like there was more (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    than a little involvement by outside forces, including boots on the ground and providing arms to the rebels.

    NATO's targeting grew increasingly precise, one senior NATO diplomat said, as the United States established around-the-clock surveillance over the dwindling areas that Libyan military forces still controlled, using armed Predator drones to detect, track and occasionally fire at those forces.

    At the same time, Britain, France and other nations deployed special forces on the ground inside Libya to help train and arm the rebels, the diplomat and another official said.

    "We always knew there would be a point where the effectiveness of the government forces would decline to the point where they could not effectively command and control their forces," said the diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss confidential details of the battle inside Tripoli.

    "At the same time," the diplomat said, "the learning curve for the rebels, with training and equipping, was increasing. What we've seen in the past two or three weeks is these two curves have crossed." NYT_World

    I agree with you that

    To pretend otherwise is to push transparent propaganda that serves absolutely no purpose.


    Parent
    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:39:42 AM EST

    Qaddafi had plenty of American blood on his hands.  Good riddance.  

    Parent
    What theory? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    This was the violent overthrow of a tyrant led by the people and not outside forces.

    Celebration is earned on many fronts.

    You can agree with this and disagree (or agree) with the use of military force by the US/NATO.

    They're not mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    The Neocon Theory (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    That held internal overthrow of a tyrant by the people was impossible (thus the need to do it for them in Iraq).

    This is a victory for the Libyans and for the concept that the US can take a support role (with others taking the lead) and accomplish good things.

    I would have preferred that Obama get congressional approval for our actions, but it looks like he ultimately made the right call about becoming involved.

    Parent

    I'm So Confused (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    Would the republicans please state their positions on foreign intervention, because this non-sense of backing whatever BS their party leader does and totally slamming the same policy done by another leader is way too confusing.

    Is democracy in the middle east no longer a backed by republicans ?

    Is doing it by force not a neocon wet dream anymore ?

    Did these policy shifts occur because of the massive failure in Iraq, or because the current leader doing them has a D behind his name ?

    Me, I'm easy, stay out of it unless it becomes a drastic human rights issue, then we go in for stability, not some grand mission to bring democracy by bomb.  No Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria regardless of who is doing it.

    Republicans (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    don't have a cohesive foreign policy nor a cohesive belief in anything much except maybe the love of radical religious fundamentalism that I can see.

    They just jerk their knees and flail around and scream and name call.

    Parent

    I wonder who... (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:44:46 PM EST
    the new boss will be.

    That is a several billion dollar question (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:54:00 PM EST
    And I wonder who our new boss (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:55:39 PM EST
    will be.  That's the risk of democracy.

    I would say we're all generally better off, on balance, if the people get to choose their leaders than if the supposed leaders get to choose which people they will rule over and oppress.


    Parent

    Well, it is a little different since we are fairly (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    assured of elections every four years. I see nothing indicating that will be the case in Libya.

    Parent
    Hopefully the new boss will (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    be better than the old boss and the people in Libya benefit from this rather than just trade one oppressive dictator for another.
     

    Parent
    Watching the Al Jazeera stream (4.50 / 2) (#27)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    Always powerful to watch this kind of catharsis in the streets.  I only wish I saw any women there, as well.  It's all men, all the time.  I think, dear Libyan males, you need to tear down one more regime, one that seems more powerful than Ghaddafi's ever was.  But small steps.  Congratulations and good luck.  

    Pretty Sure (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    Libya has an excellent record on women's issues.

    They hold high level cabinet positions in the government, served in the arm forces, and I believe Gafoffi's personal guard, a special forces like branch of the military, is entirely made of of women.

    They can vote, wear western clothing, get educated, hold high level 'private' jobs, own property, drive and pretty much do anything a man can do, including deciding who they marry.

    This article I read at the beginning of the uprising seem to indicate the theory is equal, but separate.  There are female only stores, including gas stations, which at the time had very long lines.  Men came and helped push stranded cars driven by women.  The feeling I got is these female only stores were set-up by the women, not for cultural reason, just to give them a haven against men.

    Not sure why they aren't out celebrating, but that shouldn't be interpreted as oppression.

    Parent

    Maybe they are smart enough not to celebrate (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 07:03:09 AM EST
    until it is really time for celebration.

    Parent
    Hopefully (4.50 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    this will be the end of our involvement in Libya and I hope the Libyan people get what they hope for.

    Saif (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    CNN is reporting the rebels say they have Saif Gadhafi.

    CNN has gone over to CNN International for full-time coverage of the events unfolding there.

    This all looks like a tremendous vindication of Obama's decisions on this.  I was getting pretty restive about it, but he gambled and has apparently won, and I welcome it.

    The situation and conditions may be unreproduceable, but still.  If it's possible for the U.S. to help out on a limited basis in situations like this without going to all-out war, I'm all for it.  If the U.S. is going to go around preaching human rights and democracy, we'd better be prepared to back it up when it's practical for us to do so.  IMO.  This is one of the few situations where it was practical, and to have stood by would not have been the right thing to do.  Of course, very much IMO.

    Obama has apparently (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    made the right call on Libya.

    No ground forces.  Letting other NATO countries do most of the work.  Gadhafi gone.

    Who takes over next could be a problem.  But we avoided another major war....and also avoided a slaughter in Benghazi a few months ago....

    Parent

    Completely disagree (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    Happy for the Libyan people. Hope this works out for them.

    Do not see the advantage for the American People.

    And engaging in an undeclared and illegal war is not good for our institutions.

    I see no vindication.

    Parent

    It's not a popular uprising either ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    and the people will likely end up worse off or just as bad.  If this U.S. backed military overthrow holds.  Not a sure thing.

    Parent
    The so-called .... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    "rebels" are lead by "disgruntled" members of the Libyan military.  They are backed by the U.S..

    And there are so many U.S. intelligence assets in that country right now, they could hold year-by-year service entry reunions.

    So make up whatever term for it you like.  It's a U.S. show.

    Parent

    Yeah, photos ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:35:10 AM EST
    never lie.

    The Philippines ... geez ... they got you hook, line and sinker.

    But probably better to buy into the propaganda.  To much your popcorn, drink your diet soda and enjoy the show.  You'll live a happier, more relaxed life that way.

    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    It's not particularly good for the American people.  Doesn't matter, IMO.  Sometimes you simply have to do the right thing, and if we preach democracy, we should back that up where it's practical to do so.  Otherwise, we should STFU and go Pat Buchanan isolationist.

    It was feasible in Libya, where it isn't in Syria, Bahrain, Saudi, etc.

    All of our wars have been undeclared and illegal for generations, and always will be, so that's just a moot point with no real world application.  You and I might wish it weren't so, but you know if he'd asked Congress for permission, they'd still be arguing about it today. I'd be surprised if the U.S. ever down to the end of time has another officially declared war.  Not going to happen.  As long as our political/governance system is as broken as it is, it's idiotic, IMO, to expect the president to get congressional approval, especially for this kind of very limited involvement.

    So I think there is vindication, given current realities, in that Obama limited U.S. involvement, succeeded in sloughing a lot of it off onto NATO for once, risked no U.S. lives and precious little treasure.  It's turned out that both NATO and the U.S. limited involvement has made the difference in the Libyans being able to finally throw off the goon who's ruled them for such a long time.

    I don't think exactly the conditions that prevail in Libya come along very often, but when they do, I think Obama's response was the right one.

    I don't know how that's not vindication-- even if half of it was luck, which I think it probably was.  It was a gamble, and it paid off for the Libyan people and ultimately for the world if a bad dictator is thrown off by his own people.

    We should root for that, don't you think?

    Parent

    Do we know it was democracy we supported? (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    I guess we will find out soon now.

    I have no doubt this is a great day for most Libyans. I hope the ones that had to refugee out can come back, and that all will be treated fairly.

    I have no doubt it is also a great day for contractors of the nation-building variety.

    For America? Maybe Libya will replenish our strategic oil reserves in gratitude for our service.

    For Obama? Probably good for him short term but it has every possibility pf going to hell in the NSF few ,onth goes to he'll in the next few months it will not b

    Parent

    Aaargh.....hit post mid edit. (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:38:07 PM EST
    You get my drift. I'm adopting a wait and see attitude on the Obama bump. Let's see how events play out.

    Parent
    It's a gamble, no question (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:50:13 PM EST
    about that.  But as far as I'm concerned, a gamble worth taking and preferable to staying aloof from it-- for all kinds of reasons.

    Parent
    Not really, no (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    we don't know that.  But I keep saying I put my money on a widespread popular uprising over a dictator any day.  IOW, the odds of anything resembling democracy under Gadhafi are zero.  Under whatever new regime emerges, greater than zero.

    I actually don't care all that much whether it benefits the U.S. or not because it has no possibility of benefiting us more than fractionally at best

    Parent

    France and other Arab (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    countries asked for our help.....

    The issue of illegal war.....War Powers Act questions.....our involvement was rather back seat.....We are involved like that in a lot of places, one would think.

    Parent

    The most frightening thing (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    I can read as a soldier's spouse is someone who says, "Hey, we've done this before and we've bucked the system before and ROE before, why do we need to question any of this?"  Please take my word for it, never ever throw away your right, even need, to question every single military action your country is ever involved in.

    Parent
    Backseat to you (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:47:25 PM EST
    Not to me.

    Parent
    No U.S. casualties (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    No ground troops.  Few sorties....

    Logistical and intelligence support.  That is something we should do for our allies.....

    Parent

    Media (none / 0) (#20)
    by star on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    "Few Stories"

    Would this have been true if the occupant of WH has the last name Bush???

    Parent

    No US casualties (none / 0) (#68)
    by sj on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:31:11 PM EST
    Do US lives have more value than Libyan lives?  I don't know what the "correct" action was, but using US lives as a measurement just doesn't feel right.

    Parent
    Seeing as how it is not our (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:02:25 AM EST
    country and we will get zip either way.... Why should we spend one life or one cent of treasure in this matter?

    Parent
    I thought you were gung ho (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    on Iraq.

    Now, you take the liberal position on the use of force?

    Parent

    He absolutely WAS (none / 0) (#164)
    by glanton on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 07:46:54 PM EST
    gung ho on Iraq.  Which was of course the idiot's position.  He'd be for this too if it was President McCain doing it.    

    Parent
    It matters (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    And the idea was that overall supporting the rebels was the better choice....

    Parent
    BTD you are spot on (none / 0) (#18)
    by star on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    I am so happy to see the end of a brutal dictator. it is amazing to see the coverage on Al Jazeera. To hear Gaddafi still ranting and raving is unbelievable.
    I do wish this administration had let matters take its own course and the let the Arab upraising be just that with out dropping our bombs all over Libya. It might have taken a bit longer, but eventually the people would have prevailed.
    As for what the future holds...who knows. it most probably will get worse (lot worse) before the dust settles and there is some kind of government.

    Could not help think back to the images of jubilant Afghans splashed on our TV screens when the soviets were withdrawing. It did not take long for Taliban to make the country a living hell and making USA the enemy #1. Hope it will not be repeated with these Arab Springies..

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    it's vanishingly unlikely the Libyan rebels could have done it without help.  That's how guys like Gadhafi (and Assad and Saddam) manage to stay in power as long as they do.

    Mubarak and his government were capable of being shamed and unwilling to turn the military on their own people to the extent they would have had to to stay in power.  Not so Gadhafi and Assad and Saddam.

    There's something just a bit icky to me about sitting around rooting for The People to win and being unable to lift a finger to help them.  Just sayin'.

    Parent

    well BTD, i don't seem to actually recall (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    the wars in afghanistan & iraq being declared so by congress either. and yet, 10 years down the road, there we are. the problem lies with congress, and its failure to do its job, as regards both bush & obama.

    the CEO will always push to edge, it's the job of congress & the courts to rein him/her in, both have failed miserably.

    that said, congratulations to the libyan people, who deserve nothing less than a gov't that represents their interests. i hope they get that, and not just another dictator.

    Parent

    Obama's statement on Libya (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:16:46 PM EST
    Tonight, the momentum against the Qadhafi regime has reached a tipping point. Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qadhafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.

    The surest way for the bloodshed to end is simple: Moammar Qadhafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end. Qadhafi needs to acknowledge the reality that he no longer controls Libya. He needs to relinquish power once and for all. Meanwhile, the United States has recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority in Libya. At this pivotal and historic time, the TNC should continue to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to steer the country through a transition by respecting the rights of the people of Libya, avoiding civilian casualties, protecting the institutions of the Libyan state, and pursuing a transition to democracy that is just and inclusive for all of the people of Libya. A season of conflict must lead to one of peace.

    The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. Going forward, the United States will continue to stay in close coordination with the TNC. We will continue to insist that the basic rights of the Libyan people are respected. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners in the international community to protect the people of Libya, and to support a peaceful transition to democracy. T/L sidebar



    Parent
    Two different things (none / 0) (#94)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    President Obama was undoubtedly politically vindicated in this -- it's better for him to have Gadhafi ousted and NATO's mission "resolved" going forward. It could also be said that President Obama's military strategy/doctrine also received quite a boost. But his view of American foreign policy and the rule of law? Maybe not so much. I think these are different things, and vindication can come in one but not the other. President Obama may have shown a "smart" way to achieve military aims while at the same time winning a war that doesn't particularly benefit the American people outside of as-yet-unrealized aspirations of spreading democracy and lowering oil prices.

    Parent
    The question is (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    will the new Libya be a friend, or will it be theocracy dedicated to destroying us?

    Same question re Egypt.

    Same question re Syria.

    Reference Iran.

    Parent

    You forgot the most important two (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    Iraq and Afghanistan.....

    What, you Republican hawks don't like foreign wars anymore?   Better late than never.

    Parent

    Well, yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:06:20 PM EST
    Iraq had people who were in opposition but Hussein gassed them.... And Taliban was in control until they made the mistake of backing Osama.

    And we also didn't mention Kosovo.. Don't we still have troops there?? And I seem to remember we tried peace keeping in Lebanon 1983 as well as 1958 and our refusal to side with France and England when Egypt seized the Suez Canal should get factored in somewhere.

    It doesn't do any good because any opposition to your agenda MUST come from a Repub, but I will repeat. I am a social liberal and Independent.

    My point remains. What we will get out of all of this may be not to our advantage. Time will tell, just as it did in Iran circa 1979.

    Parent

    It was a radio program Jim (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    The martians never really landed.

    Parent
    And none of the things I mentioned (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:51:57 PM EST
    ever happened..

    Tracy, we can hope for the best but there is no reason to assume we will get it.

    I thought you, of all people, with "Military" in their moniker and some real skin in the game would understand that.

    Parent

    Skin (none / 0) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:42:06 PM EST
    I guess the skin of the Egyptians, Lybians and others who want to get in the practice of self determination is not worthy.  We only have to worry about American skin.  

    Self-determination, it's not for the squeamish.  

    Parent

    Yes, that is my (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:06:08 AM EST
    yardstick. American skin first, last and always.

    Parent
    ManifestDestiny ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Erehwon on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:21:12 AM EST
    revised (or not) for the 20th and 21st centuries, I suppose.

    Parent
    Self protection (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:24:40 AM EST
    is never wrong.

    Parent
    I Think You Mean... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    ... 'self interest is never wrong'.

    If you use the Prisoners Dilemma game theory, self interest always results in the worst possible solution, always.

    The best solution is always cooperation.

    Parent

    The only game I play is (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    hold'edm.

    And if you think we can win anything by cooperating with radical Muslim terrorists you will be dead wrong.

    Parent

    and the muslims who aren't terrorists? (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    are what exactly?

    Chickenfeed?

    Parent

    I really don't understand your question (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    It occurs to me that we are cooperating with a number of Muslim countries.

    Are you saying we aren't??

    Parent

    referring to manifest destiny (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    I assumed you meant the entire middle east.

    Although it's pretty clear to me that the decision for whether or not we cooperate with a Muslim country has nothing to do with whether or not their government is run by terrorists.

    I fail to see how you distinguish between our relationship with Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.  Both of them have ties to terrorism in other states, neither government has openly attacked us, one we are friends with, one we aren't.  Not to mention, we "cooperate" to some extent with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Because we have to, because manifest destiny is unreasonable, because we cannot afford to - nor are we capable of - colonizing the middle east.

    Parent

    I took the "manifest destiny" comment (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    as a snark.

    Besides, we don't have the excess population to colonize the ME.

    ;-)

    And yes, all of the countries have developed accommodations with the radicals as a survival method. After all, we have shown them they can't depend on us. What they don't see is that what they are doing is "feeding the bear."

    Parent

    Best Solution for All (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    And if you think we can win anything by cooperating with radical Muslim terrorists you will be dead wrong.

    But we can cooperate with Muslim Nations.  You keep flipping back and forth between terrorists and Muslims, the two are not interchangeable.

    But that wasn't my point, which was self preservation is the worse way to deal with problems because the end result is always worse than the alternatives.

    Parent

    And everything turned out so well (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    in Iran in '79....

    Parent
    Yes, the chickens from 1953 ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Erehwon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    finally came to roost. Of course, we had nothing to do with those chickens. Not!

    Parent
    Yes we had a lot to do with (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:09:40 AM EST
    saving Iran from becoming a minion of the USSR.

    It's called "self interest."

    Do you remember the cold war?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:18:43 AM EST
    the same policies that taught OBL how to be a terrorist all in the name of saving Afghanistan from being under the control of the USSR which was collapsing anyway. Pure genius I have to tell you. Our interventions in the middle east have not been generally successful.

    Trying to control the world never works and never has worked. And it certainly hasn't made us "safe".

    Parent

    Well, if we had 20/20 forseight (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    we would have done things differently.

    But we didn't.

    You know, this is like triage. You first make sure the patient is breathing, then you stop the bleeding.

    And who, pray tell, knew the USSR was collapsing??

    Parent

    The CIA (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    had some information about that but chose to believe the other information about the USSR.

    You can see all these mistakes in hindsight yet we haven't learned anything from it hence the mistake of going into Iraq. We keep making the same mistakes over and over expecting different results.

    Parent

    So you would use "some" (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    information in national defense?

    Does it ever occur to you that in national defense you don't get a second chance?

    The information Bush had clearly said he should act.

    Parent

    They (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    DID use "some" information but it happened to be the wrong "some" information just like Bush chose the "wrong" information about Iraq. Sometimes you have two competing sets of information and both of these times, the wrong set was chosen.

    There was plenty of information out there contradicting what Bush said however Bush did not choose to listen to that, couldn't tell the difference or whatever. In the end, it's been one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes that has ever been made in this country. Bush wanted to act for whatever reasons but the information wasn't strong enough for a lot of countries. Bush reminded me of a toddler wanting a lollipop. He wanted to go into Iraq and was going to name call, have tantrums, and threatened until you gave him his "lollipop" and now the lollipop has blown up and destroyed him and the GOP when it comes to foreign policy.

    Parent

    Wrong in what respect? (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    In your 20-20 hindsight?

    And need I remind you that 99 Senators agreed with him...

    (Here I will pause and wait for you to claim that the evileeeeeeeeeeeeee Bush made the CIA and all the other major intelligence groups lieeeeeeeeeeee
    to the hapless Democrats.)

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    the senators were given the information that Bush selected which was wrong?

    Besides it wasn't 99 senators that voted for the IWR.

    Do you really think Bush was interested in being honest with anybody about going into Iraq?

    I mean this is the same guy that was shopping the lie that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11, knew that the CIA has discredited that rumor but continued to spread the lie anyway.

    And there were plenty of other countries who had the same information who said it wasn't good enough but Bush bought into it because he wanted to go in there. The whole WMD thing was made up by Bush is what has come out in the intervening years.

    Bush had a boulder on his shoulder w/r/t to Sadaam wanting to show everyone that he could do what his Dad could not. Even his Dad's people tried to warn him not to do it but as you know, toddlers just don't listen to their parents very well.

    Parent

    Bush had a.... pure psycho babble (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    Can't you do better??

    Of course maybe Bush was selecting what the CIA had instead of playing golf.

    And nothing has "come out."

    Please. Do better than repeat things like this.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    tons of information has come out like the fact that many people were reporting that they had known that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Are you still believing that there were WMDs or that Sadaam actually did attack us on 9/11? The whole Mohhamed Atta thing has been discredited but the Bush Administration was shopping that lie when they knew it was doubtful that it was true. You see rumors are not the same as facts but apparently they couldn't tell the difference.

    Parent
    Yes "many" (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    people were reporting, or more likely, they are now claiming they were reporting.

    I believe that, based on the information Bush had from the CIA, which,like it or not, has to be the lead dog in these matters, and on Hussein's own actions, Bush should have attacked.

    You should also remember that along about then criticism was building from Democrats that Bush had not prevented 9/11.

    I also believe what UN Inspector Kay said. We found none but Hussein was trying to get back into the WMD business.  He also had rockets that violated his agreement with the UN. They would have reached Israel.

    Link

    I have also always been curious about this:


    Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

    Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy.

    Link

    If they had none, why try to bribe an inspector?


    Parent

    Hussein was desperate to ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:28:19 PM EST
    ... try to get rid of the sanctions.  A couple of million dollars to try to get the best possible inspections report, regardless of the absence of any actual WMDs, was a small price.

    But Rush tried the same sophomoric argument, too.

    Parent

    Yes, I remember the cold war quite well, and ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Erehwon on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    the lies and gross abuse of power on all sides: in particular, by the UK and the US in Iran. It might be useful to read about Mossadegh objectively to see whether Iran would have come under the Soviet influence or not then. But with the UK/US intervention, we won't know now for sure, will we?


    Anyway, why are you complaining about Carter? If the US had to do what it had to in 1953, then don't cry (or blame Carter or whoever) when the chickens came to roost since 1979! Unless you think that the US could have given SAVAK more assistance, killed a few more Iranians, and delayed the inevitable by a few more years.

    Parent

    I think it is beyond doubt that (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    Iran would have gone under Soviet control and given the Soviets a warm water port and a leg up in controlling Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc.

    I am complaining about Carter because his policies allowed a terrorist regime to replace the Shah. Without that the follow on terrorism would not have happened. He was the mid wife.

    Parent

    Saudi Arabia (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    is the one that produces all the terrorists yet for some reason people like you can't see that.

    I'm sure you want to be get involved in some quagmire in Iran and throw another 1 trillion dollars down that hole.

    Apparently you think that we should have gone to war with Iran back in the 70's?

    Parent

    People like me??? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    Really???  Can you produce a single quote where I have said that SA is blameless? (You can't because I haven't.)

    Should we have gone to war with Iran??

    We didn't need to. All we needed to do was insure that the Shah selected his replacement.

    And no, I don't want a quagmire in Iran. Just a steady diet of cruise missiles and bombings for a few weeks should topple the regime and slow down their nuclear program.

    Iran has moved some of its centrifuge machines to an underground enrichment site that offers better protection from possible airstrikes, the country's vice president said Monday.

    Engineers are "hard at work" preparing the facility in Fordo, which is carved into a mountain to protect it against possible attacks, to house the centrifuges, Fereidoun Abbasi was quoted as saying by state TV.

    Link

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    you can't get people to go along with what you want if it's not what they want too. The people of Iran wanted a fundamentalist country. They would have killed the next leader and the next leader until they got what they wanted. They are going to have to throw off the shackles of fundamentalism which I think is going to happen judging by some of the things that have been happening there. Somebody else coming in and meddling with their stuff just will make them cling to fundamentalism MORE not less. Our meddling in the middle east has really done nothing but make them hate us. As long as we meddle, the leaders of those countries can keep a grip on the people because they can blame us whereas if we stay out of their business, they are going to have to start looking at their own leaders. Leaders playing divide and conquer is the oldest game in the political playbook.

    Parent
    So the citizens of Iran (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    wanted a new boss just like the old boss??

    Don't think so.

    What they got was a new boss who used the same tactics you deplore when used by the Shah to maintain power.

    The two important differences for us.

    1. We had some influence with the Shah and could nudge him towards democracy. We had none with the radicals.

    2. The radicals showed the world that we would not protect our self interests and would not protect our "friends." Thus a "look the other way" atmosphere re radical terrorist activities developed as a means for survival in Iraq, SA and Pakistan.


    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    saying that the Shah should have named his successor. Now I would call that putting in a new boss just like the old boss.

    There was never going to be democracy in Iran with the Shah. We wanted someone we could "control" and were not the least bit interested in democracy in that country nor were we interested in democracy for almost any country back during the cold war.

    Terrorism was going on long before all this happened. I guess you've forgotten about the plane hijackings that happened back in the 70's? There has always been terrorism even in this country with our own home grown terrorists going back to the 19th century with the KKK. This annoys me with conservatives. They seem to think that there's never been terrorism until 9/11.

    You must think that Reagan showed the same thing then he pulled out of Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks then.

    Parent

    There wasn't going to democracy (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    in Iran under the Shah, but we had some influence. So we were capable of getting some reforms. We lost that when the Shah left and the radical terrorists took over.

    Reagan made a huge mistake when he pulled out. That just reinforced the image produced by our loss in Vietnam and our lack of response to Iran's seizing American territory and citizens.

    But I see that you know you have lost the argument because you now want to talk about terrorism being around forever, and the last refugee of the Left, the KKK..... What's next? The Crusades?

    Parent

    You don't (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:09:07 PM EST
    think that the KKK was a terrorist organization? I guess you think that terrorism began on 9/11. What a bunch of nonsense. The FBI disagrees with you and considered the KKK a terrorist organization along with a lot of others. Did the crusades happen in this country? Terrorism HAS been around for quite a while.

    So you finally admit that it was all about controlling the countries and that's one of the reasons that they hate us now because of all that meddling. So I guess getting some "reforms" was worth having him murder his enemies? I mean in that respect how is the Shah really much different that the creepy fundamentalists? They are doing that too but I guess it's okay to murder your citizens as long as it's "our guy". I think this just shows how morally bankrupt conservative foreign policy has become.

    Parent

    I don't think the KKK has a thing to (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 05:28:41 PM EST
    do with radical Muslim terrorists, 9/11, Iran in 1953, etc., etc. I think you are trying to change the subject.

    Finally admit?? I have never said otherwise. The point was, is and will be. We had some control over the Shah. We have none over the radicals.

    Does that mean I agree with everything the Shah did?

    Nope. But was losing the Middle East and birthing radical Muslim terrorism worth dumping the Shaw?

    Morally bankrupt??? The morality of a foreign policy is how well it protects the citizens. Think I'm wrong?? Ask some of the families that lost loved ones on 9/11.

    You want morally bankrupt? Believing that it is okay to kill American citizens to further the goals of those in opposition to a political party is true moral bankruptcy. Does that describe you?

    Are you one of "I support the troops but oppose the war?"

    You know, that really encouraged those who were trying to kill the troops.

    Parent

    Dumping the (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    Shah didn't birth radicalism. Fundamentalism births radicalism. We have the same radicalism in our country that is born out of religious fundamentalism and we haven't had a Shah here. So far the radical fundamentalists haven't taken over but they're certainly trying to. Maybe if we hadn't meddled in their elections back in the 50's fundamentalism would have never taken hold but we'll never know will we?

    The families of 9/11 know that Sadaam didn't attack us unlike some conservatives still seem to believe.

    Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism despite what you might like to think. Their goals are the same-
    to terrorize people whether they are AQ or the KKK.

    I have no idea what you are talking about in those last few sentences. Are you talking about conservatives like Rush Limbaugh advocating the murder of college professors or what???

    Parent

    So, we're just like Iran???? (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    Do you make this stuff up or are you getting it from someplace???

    And again, you try and reframe the discussion. That really is an old old trick and doesn't work.

    Do you know any "conservative" who believes Sadaam attacked us on 9/11?? No? That's what I thought. Another talking point spewed out disgusied as thought.

    And you didn't understand my last few sentences?

    lol

    Yes. You did and you know they are correct.

    Parent

    Did I say (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    we are like Iran? No, I said we are not because the radical fundamentalists have not taken over her but they ARE TRYING to.

    Um, yeah, I know conservatives that believed that Sadaam had something to do with 9/11. They believed what Dick Cheney was telling them like a bunch of fools.

    Conservative myths

    Parent

    The operative word is "believed." (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 10:38:05 PM EST
    I believed in Santa Claus at one point then learned better. And no one made a big deal about what I "believed."

    Your equivalency argument is that both Iran and the US has radical fundamentalists.

    Perhaps you can explain who these are in the US.

    OH! I know! Anyone who disagrees with you!

    lol

    Parent

    The radical (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    fundamentalists in the US are people like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. They are ideological soul mates to the fundamentalists in the middle east because he wants to change the constitution to be based on the bible much like the Koran is the basis of how the countries in the middle east are set up.

    Perhaps this explains their goals better than I can:
    Dominionism

    Dominionism rules in the middle east too.

    Parent

    Is there a preacher under your bed?? (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    Do you actually think wanting a government that allows hanging of gays, stoning for infidelity, denying education for females... makes them the soul mates of Perry and Bachmann?

    You know, I can no longer take you seriously.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    haven't been reading what Perry plans to do to the constitution have you? Yep, all those are similar to what Perry wants because he wants the government based on the bible and all those things are found in the bible.

    You really haven't read up much on the beliefs of the Republican candidates have you?

    Parent

    Uh, when Perry (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    is elected with a huge majority in the Senate and Congress I'll start to worry.

    Did you worry when Obama said this?

    Sounds like he wants to take over the country.

    Of course he may have changed his mind when he was elected and found out just how little power, in some areas, a president has.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    tape is just stupid. I've seen that before.

    As we all know, the GOP isn't above making up stuff to get legislation through. Of course, though I do agree with you that it will probably be the end of the GOP if Perry is elected and he follows through with his agenda.

    Parent

    His agenda? (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:07:16 PM EST
    How come you just smear and never provide a bit of proof?

    Parent
    Must ....... stop ........ LAUGHING ..... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    PPJ complaining about smearing and a lack of proof?!?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .....

    Parent

    Well, answer the question (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:19:08 AM EST
    You want me to answer a question ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:24:32 AM EST
    ... directed at Ga6thdem?  Weird, ... but okay.

    The premise of your question is faulty, as Ga6th often provides evidence in her posts.  You just choose to ignore it.

    More importantly, you demanding evidence is like Newt Gingrich preaching about the importance of "family values".  It's seriously funny.

    Parent

    Look, pay attention (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    you joined the conversation.

    Typical. Show, attack, distort, snark...

    As my Shadow I expect better.

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    I know you have no problem speaking for other, but I try to avoid it.  In this case, however, it's not difficult, since your question is based on a false premise.

    The rest of your post is just nonsense.

    Parent

    Plainer (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    Yman can't answer.

    Shadowing gets you in trouble.

    Parent

    "Plainer" - heh (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    I think you mean more "simple".  I will have to admit, ...

    ... you are the King of simple.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    If you can't, you can't. But why jump in when you can't? Desperate to prove what we already know?

    lol

    Parent

    ????? Heh (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 06:30:13 PM EST
    The King ...

    Parent
    Only a complete idiot ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    ... would be worried about Obama's call for a "civilian national security force", since he was talking about doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service, not creating some type of "Waffen SS"/"security force" with police powers or weapons.

    ... or a winger ...

    ... or both.

    Parent

    BTW - From Obama's actual speech, ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    ... as opposed to a fear-mongering, out-of-context snippet:

    [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

    People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

    We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

    We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

    (fear-mongering, deceptive snippet in italics).

    Classic Jim.

    Parent

    Sounds like a call for Brown Shirts to me (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    Yman has his head in the sand... or someplace.

    lol

    Parent

    Explain how calling for ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:17:59 PM EST
    ... an expanded Peace Corps and a network for increasing volunteerism sounds like "a call for Brown Shirts", Jim.

    I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame it on the pain meds you're taking for your finger, but it's no different than the million other silly, baseless arguments you make every day.  You get caught in yet another, debunked, winger myth, and you double down.  Transparent, of course, ...

    ... but also seriously funny.

    Parent

    On second thought, .... sorry (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 09:26:33 PM EST
    Sounds like a call for Brown Shirts to me.

    Missed those last two words.

    Thanks for proving my point(s) from my first response.

    Parent

    You're missing a lot of things (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    ...ability to make a point.... reading comprehension....

    Parent
    Heh - in other words, ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    ... you can't explain your ridiculous claim.

    SOP for Jim.

    Parent

    My claim?? (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    Obama said what he said. We even have him on video.

    Some say de Nile is in the Muslim Brother Country of Egypt.

    Parent

    Muslim Brotherhood Country (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    of Egypt

    Parent
    obama DID say what he said ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:19:37 PM EST
    ... and I posted theentire passage of the speech, which proves he was talking about expanding the Peace Corps and creating a network for volunteer opportunities, not some winger "Brown Shirt" fantasy.  The fact that you persist when your claim has been clearly disproven only establishes that you're willing to lie to push a conservative fairy tale.

    Not that anyone would be surprised by this ...

    Parent

    Well good for you (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 06:13:36 PM EST
    and I am glad to see you can agree that his words are provocative.

    I mean, what did the Nazi's call them???

    "Young people being trained to Jews?"

    Nope... They were called "Youth Corps..."

    BTW - Thanks for continually proving you are who
    and what you care.

    lol

    Parent

    Right, Jim (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    The Hitler "Youth Corps" is just like the Peace Corps because they both use the word "corps".

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

    OMG - Someone should notify the Marine Corps!

    Parent

    Do you mean Marine Corps or (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 12:04:45 AM EST
    Corpse man... You know, like your Dear Leader called them...

    And I didn't say they were the same, just that both had the same name.. Of course Obama did say we could no longer rely JUST on our military... but we had to have a civilian national security agency that's just as powerful..just as strong..

    Of course if you want to argue that he didn't mean it..

    Parent

    Uhhm, ... who is my "Dear Leader", ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    ... Jim?  Are you speaking about Obama?  If so, you haven't been paying attention to my comments.  As much criticism as Obama deserves (and he deserves a lot of criticism), you wingers don't know where to draw the line.  You make laughable anaologies and lie about his calls for a larger Peace Corps and volunteer service, then you try to compare them because (you claim) they both use the same word.

    Seriously deluded.

    Almost as deluded as your own blog, where you post pictures of Obama with Hitler and Stalin, demanding his impeachment.

    Classic Jim.

    BTW - You never said what German group was called the "Youth Corps".  Assuming you meant the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth), you would be wrong ...

    ... as usual.

    Parent

    All the youth corps (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    were youth corps except for the ones that were old corps.

    And you missed Dear Leader saying corpse man?

    What a sheltered life you live.

    lol

    Parent

    No they weren't (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    But we know hoe you love just to make $hit up, right Jim?

    BTW - Not sure what your fascination is with Obama's pronunciation of "corps", but nice try at dodging the point.  Your winger, "brown shirt" comparison is nothing more than a silly winger fairy tale, and your persistence in pushing it when proven wrong makes you a hardcore winger ...

    ... and a liar.

    Parent

    You know what I like about you? (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    Your switch is just sooooo easy to flip and then I get to watch you display your nasty personal attack side.

    Man, I've got you lit up and I'm in your head 24/7.

    But I done with this one, Dear Shadow. See you next time.

    lol


    Parent

    "Nasty personal attack side" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 10:00:41 PM EST
    Sorry, Jim - that's your MOU.  Stating the fact that you're lying is just, well ...

    ... stating the obvious.

    But I guess if I just learn to put an "Lol" or ";-)" after my posts, it's not a personal attack - just a joke, right, Jim.

    Nahhhhh .... I'm more of a "say it to your face" guy than a coward.

    LOL!

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    strategy won't work with Iran or it would have already been done.

    Parent
    We couldn't bomb Iran (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    back to the stone age??

    Surely you jest.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    hasn't it been done then? Why didn't Bush who was always talking about how evil they were do it?

    Bombing somebody back into the "stone age" is a bunch of nonsense. How well has that worked in Afghanistan? It's all just a feel good exercise for some people who really just want to kill a lot of Muslims not something that would work in the real world.

    Parent

    We haven't really tried. (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    Ahhhhh, yes .... more wisdom from ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    ... the Anne Coulter School of International Relations.

    Thank G0d most people realize how crazy they sound ...

    Parent

    They were doing a little more (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    than they were supposed to be doing.  The NATO countries stepped outside peacekeeping and no fly and training because fellow NATO governments were pulling the plug.  They can't justify this and the costs with their populations who get really P.O.'d and protest and tear stuff up.

    I'm pretty sure they were bombing the flick out of everything, and they hope that the celebration will be louder than the wailing.

    Don't know how much of a vindication this will be.  There has been in-fighting and murders among the rebels over power.

    Parent

    You think there's any chance (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    the result of a widespread popular uprising will be worse than Gadhafi?  Ok, I guess there's a chance if you think the Bolsheviks were objectively worse than the tsars and Khomeini worse than the Shah.  That's a pretty hard call to make if you weren't one of the people that had to live with it.  Guess you have to have lived there to really make that judgment.

    Me, I'll gamble on the people over the dictators every time, even if it ends up not being all that much better for the U.S.


    Parent

    I'll pick the people too (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    but because we pushed this thing we now a violent repressive regime power vacuum.

    Parent
    I will be double shocked too (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    If there isn't some hell raised that we bombed and killed a bunch of innocent people.  Are you okay with casually sacrificing them for this experiment if that is indeed what we did to get this done?

    Parent
    War is hell, MT (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 10:09:27 AM EST
    And I don't think there can be any question but that a lot more people would have died if NATO hadn't come in on this.

    And no, I'm obviously not big on "casually sacrificing" people's lives, but that's really not what happened here.

    Lastly, I dunno if the Libyan people would call a fight for their freedom from Gadhafi an "experiment."

    Parent

    When I dared to peek at CNN earlier (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    Fredricka Whitfield was prattling on about Casey Anthony's car.

    Parent
    It was a missed opportunity for me (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    I remember how good CNN International was about 10-15 years ago.

    I can get it on my cable system now, and it's still better than CNN US (which has been crap since at least 2005).

    Parent

    Gyrfalcon is doing a full Politalkix (none / 0) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    on Libya. Floored :-)!

    link

    link

    link

    Parent

    Sounds like too many of the NATO (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:53:29 PM EST
    countries trying to deal with austerity were on the brink of having to pull out, so they gave the rebels the air support that they needed and had been asking for so we could finish this.  The people sound so hopeful calling in, certain that they all now have a chance to have a better life.  Wish I felt that certain.  This is a better chance though for those that survive this than the status quo.  It's a chance....maybe

    No certainty but (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    at least a chance, which they dind't have before.

    There are no guarantees in this stuff.

    And there's also a not insignificant chance that the winners will not make a government with policies that are all that much more friendly to the U.S.  That's the way it goes, no?

    Parent

    That is the way it goes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:02:33 PM EST
    We didn't have the resources to do this properly though if we were really going to do it.  We may have just helped kill Libyans on their way to a new horrible murdering ba$tard.

    Parent
    Yep, that's the way it goes, and we've... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:18:07 PM EST
    ...been there and done that before, and so far we've been wrong every single time.  Maybe with such a tiny footprint we won't be able to f*ck it up, but our history isn't encouraging.  I hope we stay out of it and let Libya makes its mistakes.  If we don't, nothing good will happen.

    Parent
    You're referring to Afghanistan (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:37:09 PM EST
    I assume.  (At least, that's the only one I can think of that meets those criteria.  I'm not getting "every single time" at all.)

    And yes, that's the risk you and they take.

    Parent

    Yes, but Iraq, Vietnam, Phillipines, you name it (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    These days, though, Iraq stands out as the obvious memory.  Statues coming down, celebrations, and then the nightmare really began.  And like I commented in another thread, I just wish I saw women in the streets celebrating too.  The regime of gender dominance in so many middle east societies has a firmer grip, it seems, than dictators do.  Such are the ugly and difficult ironies of real life.  I wish them all the luck and peace and smarts in the world.  They'll need them.

    Parent
    U.S. involvement in Iran (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[1]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[2] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[3]
    ...
    With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[9
    ....
    According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[12] 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict.[13] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[14][15][16] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. link


    Parent
    In most cases (none / 0) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    the U.S. has come in on the side of the dictator against the people-- cf. Vietnam.

    Parent
    Not lately (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    We didn't come in on the dictator's side in Iraq.  Or in Afghanistan.  Just the opposite. When mass murder is introduced, and that's war is more than anything else, all bets are off, however noble you think your intentions.  And let's be honest, we had every intention of being Vietnam's de-facto dictator, but we got beat.

    Parent
    scratch that last sentence (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    It's accurate, obviously, but that was your point about Vietnam.  

    Parent
    The wrong side of what??? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    Iran '53 was about our wanting to keep the Soviets out. But.... Do you really think that a pro Soviet ruler would have been better than our pro US ruler????

    And when Carter pulled the plug we got a democratic Iran??? Of course not. Again we got a regime that rules by terror and in which we have no influence. And one that wants to destroy us and Israel.... and who is working feverishly to turn Egypt into a theocracy.

    Now that's what I call progress.

    Parent

    Just saw some women celebrating... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    ...in Benghazi, I believe, on the AJ feed.  In their own little corner it seemed, but they were out there.  

    BTW, (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:29:10 PM EST
    We don't have boots on the ground, which is a good thing. It is key to keep it that way.

    Question: how does the President play this? I think he has to do his best impression of Bush I.

    CNN talking head (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    proclaims that Italy will have to help Libya form an effective new government.

    Oops. "Good luck with that" has never seemed more appropriate.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:40:13 PM EST
    Remember the scene in Damascus from Lawrence of Arabia. That's what I have in mind now.

    Parent
    What could go wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    Remember (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    Yes, also reminded of some of the scenes (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    Rory Stewart describes in 'The Prince of the Marshes' about his term as the first provisional governor in the Brit run area of Iraq.

    Always interesting to watch the reshuffle of the deck.

    Parent

    Our payment to Qaddafi (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:18:50 PM EST

    for Lockerbie is long overdue.  President Obama is at the very least getting this debt paid off.

    geez, if we really wanted payback (none / 0) (#59)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:16:07 PM EST
    for lockerbie, we could have just had the guy assassinated, from miles and miles away. i seriously doubt that ever entered obama's mind.

    Parent
    What may be true. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:33:40 AM EST
    .

    OTOH, getting that debt paid off is a good thing no matter the reason.

    .

    Parent

    "Mission accomplished," (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 05:02:04 AM EST
    we hope. Although now the tribal rulers must determine who the next top dog will be.

    In unrelated autocrat statue developments ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    17,000-lb bronze Lenin still loiters on a street corner in Seattle:
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127692333.html

    Seattle Vacation (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    Got a couple pics of me and Lenin while visiting last summer.

    Parent