We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

The hypocrisy of the American left



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1I62TZwZB

And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?

The threat was from the Cuban and other Com-block nations who were getting a foot-hold in our back yard, but that was in a different time. And it was quite limited in scope and operation compared to many other military events since then.

Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.

It is easily blamed on the Libya operation. It was flying there under orders to do so when it crashed. What made it crash is immaterial. Out military is pretty damm good about maintaining multi-million dollar aircraft. We will never know because they bombed the crap out of it most likely to protect TS data which may have been salvaged.

I agree

Different time, different place, different circumstances.

Still no reason for all the histrionics.

Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya

Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.

Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).

So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?

I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to your one question, "What are you talking about?".

:lol2:

So why bring up Grenada?

What histrionics?

How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?

It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?

I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.

Why did you change your name?

Cause it's funny.

:corn:

You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.

I was simply providing context.

Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.

Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.

We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.

So did Ghadaffi.

And US intel suggests otherwise.

Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?

Those who were all gung-ho to invade Iraq at the cost of $billions and thousands of US lives are so reticent to support a much less costly and much more limited action in Libya.

But then again, in a recent Gallup Poll, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57 approve - 31 disapprove) than Democrats (51-34)

Polls are the weakest form of statistical significance. You should know that already...

What were you talking about with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?

I'm not interested in debating the value of polls as one measure of public opinion, albeit less than perfect, but still a measure that conveys a picture at a point in time.

But you ignored the question.

Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?

Maybe you should repeat the question in case he forgot?

So why dont you think Bosnia was a US victory?

Because a plane crashed last week in Libya. :rolleyes::p:

Any person who is schooled in the examination of statistics would quickly ignore the individual who tried to hold up a poll as some form of statistical significance in an attempt to strengthen their argument. I do respect your continual attempts to sway public opinion but you shall never pass the scientific examination of the continually failed arguments. But yet you quote them as some form of valid point. And in this post you acknowledge that you are posting but yet another Straw Man attempt to advance the failed point based on a poll. Reflux you are a Goddam Fool.....

But yet you quote them as if they have some validity. And they do not.

You have avoided the question. Why?

Is this your Manic or Depressive state? :sweat:

No I brought up Darur because you did so. I could give a shit about that issue. We have no dog in that hunt.

[quote]Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.[/ quote] Damm, I called you names? where?


Well that is certainly different from Egypt, Syria, and Yemen.


What total bullshit. We have taken sides as has NATO.

A better question would be, Why don't you think a military operation that invaded another country and drove to the center of their base of operation in 2 weeks would be seen as anything other than "Mission Accomplished!"?

I now do understand why Lamplighter gave up trying to engage you in a rational discussion and left this place.

The tag line for Current Events is "Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it"

IMO, your dislike for Obama is so over the top, it affects you posts, often with misinformation, exaggerations and just an unwillingness to accept that other opinions may be equally valid as yours.

But have a nice night.

Who gives a fuck about a Quitter? I don't. He is a pussy if he bailed. I have no respect for Quitters.

So you want to suck up to Obama and the Demoncratic position. Who gives a shit what you think. I accept all opinions that are reasonable and well thought out. Reflux just is not one of them.

Oh I will, and you can be assured that Obama will be a One Term President.

So how many Chapters have you managed to read in Thomas Barnett's book?

Did Ted say something?

It was my impression he left for other reasons. Not a merc reason. solely

So you post this instead of answering a question yourself. Ironic.

I looked back, and I have answered the only question you asked me, so I guess we could start another round of "what are you talking about" here.

Dude, I was talking specifically about Libya when I made the comment.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=236

Not about Bosnia.

Does anyone believe this?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-support-o...30403-138.html

You asked how Bosnia was a victory, I answered, and you said "Really? OK until...". Your response made no sense as a reply to my post, which is why I asked what you were talking about, and later asked if you were responding to a different post, though there are no obvious candidates.

I wonder if we lost the Bosnian War again.

I don't know why you are spending so much time on this...

I was commenting about Libya, regardless of your assessment about Bosnia.

What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?

Let's see. Massacring 4,500 American servicemen on a war with no purpose - "Mission Accomplished" - is good. Resulting death of untold tens or one hundred thousand Iraqis was also good.

Meanwhile, Bosnia and Libya are about stopping massacres. Why did you approve of Mission Accomplished? And disparage Bosnia and Libya? Do you like massacres? Apparently.

Even 500,000 Iraqi children dead is "worth it", or something.

NATO has a good time line of how events in Libya unfolded:

This does include the first (and only) unilateral action of the US to-date, a week after the uprising began, which was to freeze $30+ billion of Libyan assets – the largest seizure of foreign assets in US history.

I think by most objective standards, the above actions were deliberative and measured.

There was no over-reaction with a display of overwhelming force right from the start nor an under-reaction by doing nothing when the threat to civilians was far greater than Egypt (where the military sided with the protesters), Tunesia, etc..

Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.

The actions to-date and the cost to the US in money and lives has been minimal, more like Bosnia than Iraq or Afghanistan.

I support it as it has played out. Even with the outcome as uncertain as it still remains, I think it is reasonable to believe that a mass slaughter of civilians has been prevented so far. I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.

Others can disagree, but I would hope they would keep it in perspective and not make it a left-right argument, given that there is support and opposition on both the left and right.

As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am no real fan of Bush but the duplicity is amazing. Selective duplicity. The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.

So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.

No, liberals think Bush did something wrong because the Iraq war turned into something that the American people didn't think they would be getting into. Initially Iraq was supported pretty much across the spectrum and Bush's ratings were through the roof. His ratings started dropping when it was realized that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk that it was talked up to be (plus other reasons but it's hard to generalize any further).

There will always by hypocrisy in politics when it comes to two polarized parties but both parties are split down the line on this one. For republicans, the neocons are pro-war and the rest are pretty much against. For democrats, there are the interventionist who are pro-war and there are the non-interventionists who are against it. There are a lot of pissed off democrats right now.

I disagree to a point. The outcome is completely unknown and the impact is in doubt but there are indirect gains with stopping Gadaffi from massacring his own people. There are reasons why everyone is much more focused on Libya and not Darfur or the Ivory Coast.

The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.
I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.

One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?

The presidential "finding" to put CIA assets into Libya was issued 2-3 weeks ago.

There has been no public acknowledgement of exactly when and for what purpose. To suggest otherwise is speculation, which we're both doing.

Prevailing is not just a function of military might. With the recent defection of two top insiders and close advisers, the support of those closestr to Ghadaffi may be crumbling.

There is even suggestions that he is loosing support of the military and relying now on mercenary thugs (no reflection on other mercenaries) from Chad, Sudan and other African nations under the leadership of his sons.

And public support may be swinging the way of the rebels as the people see that they do have a fighting chance and less likelihood of being massacred as a result of the air strikes to-date.

It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.

Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

The intervention must be limited.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.

These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.

And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.

We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.

For me, this is an appropriate time and place.

As usual, you have completely missed the point. Out.

Fail. This is the same person that said once boots were on the ground you would not support this operation.

Like Iraq?

[quote[Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.[/quote]Like Southern Iraq? When we abandoned them and allowed the to be slaughtered?

As measured by whom? You? Please enlighten us as to how the levels of threat are assessed and then a measured response by our military is applied against said threats. I mean, for myself, after 20 years in the military, I would be interested in your expert opinion.

Really? When did they put a limited intervention timetable on this event? First Obamy said weeks, now NATO says 90 days with the possibility of unlimited extensions. Which is it? Limited or not?

Oh, so just like Iraq... I get it.

Horseshit.

Please cite and quantify.


And you will fail in that assumption as well. It is a waste of time. And any bleeding heart liberal that supports this is a hypocrite.

Because the UN said so.
;)

We can debate the meaning of boots on the ground. Defense and military experts, which I am not, are debating it as well.

Obviously, you include the CIA, which presumably, already had a station in Libya.

Additional CIA assets were added in recent weeks with the presidential finding, but there is no evidence that to-date, it has been more than for intel purposes, from targeting to assessing both government forces and rebel forces.

You see it as siding with the rebels. I see it as siding with civilians given that Ghaddafi made it clear in his rhetoric and actions that he would not distinguish between rebels and civilians.

If, US military, as opposed to the CIA, puts its boots on the ground, I wont support it.

According to the prevailing reports they did not, so no, this is new.

Right, you support my point. This is not about "protecting civilians", this is taking sides and as Obamy stated, regime change.

What bullshit. So you could not support us going into Iraq but were ok when Saddam gassed the Kurds with Nerve Gas.... right.

Hair splitting. We all worked together. The CIA used us for technical support, targeting, commo, etc. The CIA are supported by elements of Special Operations Command. You have been punked by the press and your liberal bias.

Lets look at Iraq and the conditions I suggested.

There must be a popular uprising.
I agree that such an uprising existed in 1991 at our urging and we hung them out to dry. Shameful.

In 2003, there was no popular uprising along the lines of what have seen in other Arab counties over the last few months.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces against that uprising.
The greatest massacres of the Iraqi people occured in the 80s (gassing of the Kurds) through 91, with the US administrations at the time providing arms to Saddam, not in the prelude to the 2003 invasion.

The subsequent No-Fly Zone in the early 90s prevented any deadly use of military force in the north at the time of the US invasion in 2003 and the Kurds had autonomy for the first time ever.While there certainly was actions by Saddam's secret police in the south, there was no broad use of the military because his military was decimated.

The intervention must be limited (and I would add) have a UN mandate.
Certainly not the case with the invasion and occupation of Iraq for which there was no UN mandate.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
The Arab League opposed the US invasion, as did the other major Muslim countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

There were protests against the US invasion in major cities throughout the Arab world.

Not one of thse conditions fit the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

O
I
L

Neighboring countries? How about a little pressure from our European friends who get some from there?

I watched an interview on CNN last night with a couple "experts" - Months wasn't even long enough to train these people how to use the weapons and be adept/unified enough to tactically make a real offense move against the cities still held by Quackdaddy.

The longer he keeps this together, the worse it looks for the rebels. :yelsick:
I will give the administration this - they weren't stupid enough to call them freedom fighters. :rolleyes:

I dont dispute that our chicken hawk allies in NATO should do more.

Today, command of control of the No Fly Zone is a NATO operation. The naval blockade, with ships from 10-15 NATO allies including Turkey, is under NATO command and control

Yea, I think they got the message the last time that the US was not going to be there for them.

Yea, I am sure that Saddam would have welcomed them with open arms after their previous experiences.

False. Many US and coalition troops lost their lives or were injured on the drive to Iraq.

AGAIN, current estimates say 90 days with an open-ended option to extend indefinitely. Bosnia was to be limited and we were there for over 2 years.

You are right, only 10 years of inept action and failed compliance with the UN mandates.

We had that in Iraq. Maybe you forgot the list of Arab nations that supported us...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...vasion_of_Iraq

All the while in the background they were supporting us in material and intel methods.

Obvious bullshit, as I have pointed out.

Never mind.

You just want to keep talking around my points with a revisionist history, at least IMO.

How many ships has Turkey provided? What is the strength of their naval power? How many airplanes has Qutar contributed? What is the effect of their contribution?